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.

• Allah Bakhsh And Another vs Muhammad Ismail And Other1987 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01
  pre-emptionlimitationcondonation of delayconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionconcurrent findingstenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the vendee-petitioners. Respondent No.1 had successfully decreed a pre-emption suit as a tenant of the land before the Revenue Courts. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who affirmed the decree, and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding a time-barred revision and concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that failure to avail an adequate remedy within the prescribed period is a sufficient ground for dismissing a constitutional petition. Furthermore, whether sufficient cause exists for condoning delay is a matter for the Board of Revenue to decide and cannot ordinarily be challenged via writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to file a revision petition within the prescribed period of limitation constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissing a subsequent constitutional petition?
  • Can a decision of the Board of Revenue refusing to condone delay in filing a revision petition ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts regarding tenancy status can be re-agitated in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs Rehma And Other1987 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationstatement of accusedreduction of sentenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ali Sher against the High Court order dated 10-11-1980, which altered the conviction of the respondents and maintained a reduced sentence. The core legal question involves the evaluation of a conviction based on an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the inculpatory and exculpatory parts of such a statement must be accepted in their entirety when it forms the sole basis of conviction. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of respondent Mannu was justified due to lack of proof, and that since respondent Rehma's conviction was based on his own statement admitting to the killing under grave and sudden provocation, that statement had to be accepted in its entirety, justifying the reduction of sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The court laid down the principle that when a conviction is based on the statement of the accused, that statement must be believed in its entirety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction based on the statement of the accused requires accepting that statement in its entirety?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of grave and sudden provocation when convicted on his own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's reduction of a sentence based on the appreciation of the accused's statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Shera And Another1987 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07
  pre-emptionco-sharersuperior right of pre-emptionsale of specific Killa numbersundivided shareco-ownershipKhata
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant claiming a superior right of pre-emption as an alleged co-sharer in the Khata against the respondents-vendees. The trial court dismissed the suit finding the appellant failed to establish co-ownership, but the first appellate court reversed this decree. On second appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the first appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a purchaser who buys specific Killa numbers or defined fields from a sole proprietor becomes a co-sharer in the vendor's Khata for the purpose of asserting a superior pre-emption right. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding and dismissed the appeal. The Court laid down the principle that purchasing specific Killa numbers rather than an undivided fractional share of the holding does not constitute the buyer a co-sharer or co-owner with the original proprietor in the Khata.

  Questions settled

  • Does the purchase of specific Killa numbers from a sole proprietor make the purchaser a co-sharer in the Khata for pre-emption purposes?
  • Whether a pre-emptor who buys a specific portion of land rather than an undivided share acquires a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer?
  • Can a buyer be deemed a co-owner in a joint holding without purchasing an unspecified or definite fractional share?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1987 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23
  property transfersettlement lawlachesvested rightsintra-court appealpermanent transfer deednon-claimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a Single Judge's decision regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner, a non-claimant, sought the transfer of a house previously transferred to the respondents in 1960. The core legal questions concerned the eligibility of a non-allottee for property transfer without payment of rent arrears and the impact of significant delay in challenging a transfer order after vested rights had been created. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's findings, noting that the petitioner failed to pay required public dues and arrears of rent, rendering him ineligible for transfer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner's thirteen-year delay in challenging the original transfer order, coupled with the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the respondents, precluded the grant of relief. The Court held that vested rights cannot be disturbed after such extensive delay and that the Intra-Court Appeal was correctly dismissed as not maintainable under the relevant statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is a non-allottee eligible for property transfer if they have failed to pay arrears of rent and public dues?
  • Does a significant delay in challenging a transfer order bar relief when vested rights have been created in favour of third parties?
  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge in a writ petition under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Alias Ali Ahmad And Others vs Mahbub Ahmad And Other1987 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02
  second appealcivil revisionconversion of appealjudicial discretionvaluation of suitcourt-feemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction valued at five rupees for court-fee and jurisdiction, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff and upheld in the first appeal by the Additional District Judge. The defendant filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was barred under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the valuation. Upon realizing the maintainability issue, the appellant sought to convert the appeal into a revision petition at a belated stage. The High Court refused to exercise its discretion to allow the conversion, leading to the present appeal by leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's refusal to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a revision. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court normally should allow such conversion, it may refuse to do so in the proper exercise of judicial discretion based on the circumstances of the case, and found no perversity in the High Court's order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second appeal barred by law be converted into a revision petition?
  • Whether the High Court is bound in every case to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a revision?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretion to allow the conversion of an incompetent second appeal into a revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-15
  leave to appealmurderocular accountcorroborationmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction for murder arising from a family dispute and illicit relations. According to the prosecution, the petitioners attacked the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The trial court and the appellate court accepted the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses, who were brothers of the deceased, without seeking corroboration for individual participation, despite admitted enmity between the parties. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the number and location of injuries on the deceased did not correspond with the multiple assailants alleged, that the F.I.R. suffered from discrepancies regarding the nature and placement of injuries compared to the medical evidence, and that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the safe dispensation of justice regarding individual attribution. Finding force in these submissions, the Supreme Court held that re-examination of the evidence was necessary to determine the sustainability of the conviction and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ocular account of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration as to the individual participation of accused persons in a murder trial?
  • Does a discrepancy between the F.I.R. version of injuries and the medical evidence warrant a re-examination of the evidence for safe dispensation of justice?
  • Whether the conviction can be sustained when the number and location of injuries cast doubt on the alleged participation of multiple accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar And Another vs Muhammad Ramzan And Other1987 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09
  pre-emptiondeposit of purchase moneyextension of timeexecution of decreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial court on 21-10-1978, requiring the deposit of the purchase money by 19-11-1978, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The petitioners challenged the decretal amount in appeal before the Additional District Judge, who extended the time for depositing the purchase money and subsequently ordered that the deposit might be withheld until further orders. Although the petitioners eventually deposited the money, they later withdrew their appeal due to a deficiently stamped memorandum. When they subsequently sought to execute the pre-emption decree, the executing court, the appellate court, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction all held that the suit stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the original deposit deadline. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the time for depositing pre-emption money can be validly extended by an appellate court and whether non-compliance with the original deadline results in the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding compliance with the extended time period requires formal examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the purchase money in a pre-emption decree?
  • Does failure to deposit pre-emption money within the original trial court deadline result in the automatic dismissal of the suit?
  • Is an executing court justified in refusing to execute a pre-emption decree when deposit timelines were modified during appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleem Nasir vs The State1987 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtsubstitution of witnessesinvestigative lapsesFirst Information Reportmurder convictionreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary discrepancies including the substitution of eye-witnesses, the failure to prove the First Information Report, unexplained injuries on the deceased, and substantial lapses in the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses provided an incomplete account of the incident, failing to explain all injuries sustained by the deceased, and that the official functionaries exhibited unusual conduct in handling the case. Consequently, the Court established the principle that where the First Information Report is not proved, eye-witnesses are substituted, the prosecution version is altered, and significant investigative lapses exist, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the First Information Report and the substitution of eye-witnesses entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence fails to account for all injuries sustained by the deceased?
  • Does the failure of official functionaries to properly record injuries and investigate the case constitute grounds for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Samrez Enterprise vs The Federation of PakistanPTCL 1987 CL. 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  vested rightscustoms duty exemptionretrospective operationfiscal statuteexecutive notificationcontractual obligationsimport duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the retrospective application of a government notification withdrawing customs duty exemptions. The appellants challenged the imposition of enhanced customs duties following a 1977 notification, arguing they had acquired a vested right to the previous exemption due to a binding contract and preparatory actions taken before the notification's issuance. The core legal question was whether an executive notification withdrawing a tax exemption could retrospectively affect transactions where binding commitments were already made. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had indeed acquired a vested right to the exemption, as they had acted upon the assurance of the prior notification. The Court ruled that while Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969 determines the applicable duty rate at the time of the Bill of Entry, it does not nullify vested rights to exemptions. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot exercise rule-making powers to retrospectively destroy vested rights or impair contractual obligations already accrued under existing laws, and tax exemptions, once acted upon, create a vested interest that cannot be unilaterally withdrawn to the detriment of the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive notification withdrawing a tax exemption be applied retrospectively to destroy vested rights?
  • Does Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969 override a vested right to a tax exemption?
  • At what point does a taxpayer acquire a vested right to a statutory tax exemption?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhunzada Saeedul Hassan vs Qazi Ghulam Dastgir Through His Legal Heirs And Other1987 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  land disputecompromise agreementownership rightsappellate jurisdictionsettlement of disputepossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned a long-standing land ownership dispute regarding 11 Chakoram of land in village Broze, Chitral. The core legal question involved the validity of a compromise agreement reached between the parties, which the appellant had challenged after a significant delay of 28 years. The High Court had previously accepted a 1954 compromise, declaring subsequent actions by the Land Inquiry Commission without lawful authority and restraining local authorities from interfering with the respondents' possession. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the parties had entered into a subsequent compromise agreement dated 29th of May, 1980, which settled the dispute. The appellant's son confirmed the appellant's signatures on this document, and the respondent provided a statement to resolve the matter in accordance with the appellant's concerns. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the 1980 compromise and the respondent's statement. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts will give effect to valid, mutually agreed-upon compromises between parties to resolve litigation, particularly when the parties acknowledge the authenticity of such agreements in open court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise agreement entered into by the parties?
  • Is a compromise agreement valid when its execution is challenged after a significant delay of 28 years?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali And Others vs Te Province of the Punjab And Other1987 SCMR 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02
  special leave to appealcourt-fee deficiencyland acquisitionmemorandum of appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a regular first appeal. The petitioners' land was acquired by the Provincial Government for constructing a carriage-way. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and subsequently enhanced by the Senior Civil Judge, the petitioners filed a regular first appeal in the High Court with deficient court-fee. The High Court dismissed their application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making up the deficiency and consequently dismissed the appeal. The core legal question is whether the High Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to make up the deficient court-fee before dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised needs consideration and granted leave to appeal, relying on the principle established in prior jurisprudence regarding the opportunity to rectify court-fee deficiencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should provide an opportunity to make up deficient court-fee before dismissing an appeal?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower court dismisses an application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali And Others vs Mst. Rashida Bibi And Other1987 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  land allocationsettlement commissionerstatus quoleave to appealinterpretation of orderspossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the allocation of land units. The petitioners challenged the High Court's interpretation of an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20-12-1969. The petitioners contended that the High Court's decision to deprive them of land equivalent to 130 units was based on an untenable, erroneous, and unjustified interpretation of the said Commissioner's order, which had previously remained unchallenged by the respondents through various legal stages. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners and reviewing the available record, the Supreme Court found, prima facie, that there was merit in the petitioners' submission regarding the erroneous nature of the High Court's interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court ordered that the status quo regarding the possession of the land equivalent to 130 units held by the petitioners be maintained. The Court further directed that security in the sum of Rs. 2,500 be furnished and granted the parties liberty to file additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant a status quo order pending the disposal of an appeal regarding land possession?
  • Does a prima facie case regarding an erroneous interpretation of a lower authority's order justify the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Hussain And Others vs Mst. Ruqia Begum And Other1987 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11
  specific performancecolonization of government landspower of attorneyagreement to sellleave to appealproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a regular second appeal and dismissed the petitioners' suit for specific performance. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, an allottee of State land, had executed a power of attorney and an agreement in favour of the petitioners' predecessor to pay government dues, acquire proprietary rights, and subsequently sell the land. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the bar contained in section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The first appellate court reversed this, decreeing the suit, but the High Court restored the dismissal, holding that section 19 barred specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether section 19 operated as a bar to the grant of a decree for specific performance under the circumstances and whether relief could be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 operate as a bar to a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land executed by an allottee?
  • Whether a power of attorney coupled with an agreement to sell creates an immediate interest in State land prior to the acquisition of proprietary rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Aitazaz Ahsan, Bar-At-Law vs The State1987 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  leave to appealbail cancellationSupreme Court Rulesreview petitionprocedural lawdismissal of petitioninherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal arose from the Assistant Registrar's refusal to entertain an application seeking the re-hearing of a criminal petition for leave to appeal that had previously been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Office of the Court was justified in rejecting an application for the re-examination of a case that had already reached a final conclusion through a dismissal order, where the application did not constitute a review petition or a request for clerical correction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Office correctly refused the application. The Court affirmed that once a final order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal is passed, it cannot be altered or re-opened except through established procedures, such as a review petition or for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors under the Supreme Court Rules. The Court established that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass specific procedural remedies like review, and the Office is empowered to reject any document presented in violation of the Court's Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Office of the Supreme Court refuse to entertain an application that is not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules?
  • Is a final order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal subject to re-examination outside of a review petition or clerical correction?
  • Does the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction permit the re-opening of a case where a specific remedy, such as a review petition, is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali And Another vs Mst. Allah Daee And 27 Other1987 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  review petitionnew evidencedue diligenceconcurrent findings of factcivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10-11-1985, which had refused to grant leave to appeal regarding concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question before the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained based on the discovery of allegedly new evidence—specifically, a certificate from India purportedly proving that Mst. Rabia died on 21-4-1907, contradicting previous evidence (Exh. D/2) accepted by all lower courts, which established her death date as 27-12-1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence, given that the litigation had been pending since 1976. The Court affirmed that discovery of new evidence as a ground for review requires proof that such evidence was not available or discoverable despite due diligence during the original proceedings. Finding no substance in the petitioners' contentions regarding the new evidence, the Court refused to interfere with the established concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be entertained based on evidence that could have been procured earlier through due diligence?
  • Does the discovery of new evidence justify reviewing a judgment based on concurrent findings of fact?
  • Is a party entitled to reopen a case on the basis of new evidence if the litigation has been pending for a significant period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1987 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  murderspecial leave to appealcorroborationrecovery of weaponinterested witnesscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a murder trial where Ahmad and four others were prosecuted for the killing of Shera. The trial court convicted Ahmad and Mehmoora under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death, while acquitting the remaining three co-accused. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Mehmoora but upheld Ahmad's conviction, reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life. Ahmad sought leave to challenge his conviction, while the deceased's brother sought Mehmoora's acquittal's reversal and enhancement of Ahmad's sentence. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting that while ocular testimony required corroboration due to prior enmity, the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet at Ahmad's instance was supported by the unimpeachable testimony of the Investigating Officer, providing sufficient independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the recovery proved by an honest investigating officer can corroborate tainted ocular evidence, and declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion regarding sentencing. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of a weapon provide sufficient independent corroboration to sustain a murder conviction when ocular witnesses are interested and inimical?
  • Whether tainted ocular evidence can be corroborated by recovery evidence witnessed by a police officer even if private recovery witnesses are interested?
  • Does previous enmity between parties necessitate the rejection of an accused's conviction where independent corroboration in the form of a blood-stained weapon exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25
  ocular evidenceinjured witnessescredibility of witnessesleave to appealcriminal convictionplace of occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the convictions of the petitioners for offences under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, who were related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the witnesses at the scene was established as they were injured during the occurrence and lived nearby. Despite their relationship to the deceased, the lack of enmity rendered their testimony credible. The Court further addressed the contention regarding the alleged change of the place of occurrence by the investigating officer, ruling that even if true, it did not compromise the credibility of the ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the trial court and High Court were justified in their findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if related to the deceased, is reliable when no enmity exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of injured witnesses related to the deceased sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of enmity?
  • Does an alleged discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence by the investigating officer automatically invalidate ocular testimony?
  • Are the trial and appellate courts justified in relying on the testimony of injured witnesses who reside near the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Malla And Other1987 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  pre-emption suitcourt fee deficiencyright of pre-emptiontenancy rightsabatement of suitwrit jurisdictionIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a pre-emption suit filed by respondents claiming a preferential right to purchase agricultural land based on their status as tenants. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the plaint due to the respondents' failure to deposit the requisite court fee, a decision upheld by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. However, the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction and relying on the precedent set in Shana Khan v. Aulia Khan, set aside these orders and remanded the case, granting the respondents time to rectify the court fee deficiency. The petitioner, the vendee of the land, sought leave to appeal against this High Court order. The petitioner contended that, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, the respondents, as mere tenants, no longer possessed the right of pre-emption under the injunctions of Islam, rendering their suit abated. The Supreme Court admitted the petition, stayed further proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, and ordered the appeal to be fixed for hearing alongside similar pending cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a tenant confer a right of pre-emption under the injunctions of Islam?
  • Can a pre-emption suit proceed if the plaintiff does not fall within the categories of persons possessing the right of pre-emption under Islamic law?
  • Does the failure to pay court fees justify the rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Karam Elahi And 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentenceappellate discretionstatutory interpretationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to three respondents convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who had been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to suspend sentences and grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the sole ground that the sentences were 'short'. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on the 'short sentence' doctrine was legally flawed, as the legislature had specifically amended Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by adding subsection (1-A) to standardize the criteria for bail pending appeal based on sentence duration and the time elapsed since conviction. The Court affirmed that bail should be granted in accordance with the statutory timelines prescribed in Section 426(1-A), rather than subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'short' sentence. However, because the respondents would imminently satisfy the statutory requirements for bail, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court grant bail to a convict solely on the ground that the sentence is 'short' without regard to the statutory criteria in Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the amendment to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically subsection (1-A), supersede the previous judicial practice of granting bail based on the subjective 'short sentence' doctrine?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain And Others vs Punjab Province And Other1987 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-08
  canal waterirrigation rightsinterim injunctionWarabandico-sharerscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, co-sharers of canal water, challenged the Irrigation Department's decision to sanction additional water to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, fearing a reduction in their own water supply. They sought an interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, the Additional District Judge, and subsequently by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve notice under the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873 rendered the sanction of additional water invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the Irrigation Department provided an assurance that the outlet capacity would be increased to accommodate the additional supply, thereby negating the petitioners' apprehension of irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when extra supply is provided from the existing outlet capacity, notice to co-sharers is not mandatory. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Canal authorities to ensure that the Warabandi remains unaltered to the detriment of the petitioners' water supply during the pendency of the civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is notice to co-sharers mandatory under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 when additional water is sanctioned from an existing outlet?
  • Does the provision of additional water from an existing outlet capacity constitute a valid ground for an interim injunction by co-sharers?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Khan And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1987 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-17
  special leave to appealevacuee propertylimited estaterehabilitation schemeconstitutional virespast and closed transactions
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging the validity of the Punjab Act XXV of 1975. The dispute relates to evacuee lands allotted to a female refugee in lieu of property abandoned in India, which she subsequently transferred to the petitioners before her death. After her death, private claimants sought the lands as collaterals of the last male holder, invoking the principle that refugee females held only limited estates under customary law. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity and vires of the Punjab Act XXV of 1975, arguing it repugnant to federal legislation, violative of Article 143 of the Constitution, and an encroachment upon judicial functions and past closed transactions. The Supreme Court found that the case involved substantial questions of general importance concerning the interpretation of constitutional provisions and granted leave to appeal to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Act XXV of 1975 is ultra vires the Constitution by purporting to reopen rehabilitation orders that had attained finality under central laws?
  • Does the Punjab Act XXV of 1975 conflict with Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the adjudication of private rights permitted by the Punjab Act constitutes an unauthorized encroachment upon the judicial field?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Muhammad Ibrahim1987 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18
  dismissal for defaultnon-prosecutionLetters Patent appealLaw Reforms Ordinancereadmission of appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application for the readmission of a regular second appeal that had been previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question raised was whether the repeal of the Letters Patent appeal remedy by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, implicitly stripped the High Court of its power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or in default under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the closing of a right of appeal by the legislature does not impose any fetters on or restrict the inherent power of the High Court to act under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle laid down is that the removal of a collateral appellate remedy does not invalidate or restrict procedural powers of a court regarding the dismissal or restoration of default matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Letters Patent appeal by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, remove the power of the High Court to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution?
  • Can the closing of an appellate remedy by the legislature impose fetters on the High Court's power under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din Butt vs Ehsanul Haq And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-20
  settlement lawrevisional jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionlack of jurisdictionremand of casedisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a house in Lahore, involving a long-standing litigation history between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, correctly decided the merits of the case after identifying that the Settlement Commissioner who passed the impugned order lacked the requisite jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 27-12-1971 was indeed without jurisdiction, as the authority had been divested of his powers to hear such revisions prior to that date. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred by proceeding to decide the disputed questions of fact regarding the parties' comparative entitlement on the merits. The Court established the principle that when a lower authority's decision is found to be void for lack of jurisdiction, the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should not adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute but should instead remand the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, decide the merits of a case after determining that the impugned order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
  • Is an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner who has been divested of his powers to hear such matters considered void for lack of jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a High Court when it finds that the order under challenge was passed by an authority without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Azeez Zia vs Messrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. And Other1987 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-24
  ejectmentdefault in rentstriking off defencewrit jurisdictionfinding of factPunjab General Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an ejectment order passed against a tenant. The appellant-landlord sought the ejectment of respondent No.1 under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, during the course of which the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit monthly rent before a specified date. The tenant defaulted by depositing the rent for July 1980 four days late, leading the Rent Controller to dismiss the ejectment application on merits but the Additional District Judge to reverse the finding, strike off the defence, and order ejectment on the ground of unexcused default. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, declared the ejectment order without lawful authority by relying on precedents regarding court vacations and section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing a pure finding of fact without considering the specific distinguishing circumstances of the case and wrongly applied section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act where payments were to be made in the treasury rather than a closed court or office. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the ejectment order, laying down that whether a delay in depositing rent constitutes a bona fide mistake or a default is a question of fact dependent on the unique circumstances of each case, and precedents regarding court vacations do not establish a rigid rule of law applicable universally regardless of factual distinctions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's failure to deposit monthly rent within the prescribed time invariably constitute a default regardless of surrounding facts?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a concurrent or factual finding regarding a bona fide mistake in rent deposit under its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does section 9 of the Punjab General Clauses Act apply to excuse a delay in depositing rent into the treasury during civil court vacations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18
  murdereye-witness testimonyhostile witnessappreciation of evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction and life sentences of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of two alleged eye-witnesses, one of whom was declared hostile, leaving the conviction solely dependent on the testimony of the second witness, corroborated by firearm recoveries. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found the sole remaining eye-witness's presence at the scene highly doubtful. His stated reason for being at the location—assisting with threshing wheat—was directly contradicted by the Investigating Officer, who testified that no threshing floor existed near the scene of the occurrence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants, noting that the prosecution's case lacked credible evidentiary support.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of an eye-witness whose presence at the scene of the crime is contradicted by the investigating officer?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of an eye-witness at the scene of the occurrence necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18
  criminal appealmurder convictioneye-witness testimonyreliability of evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from the conviction of the appellants, Ahmad and Nasir, for the murder of one Kamir, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court and the High Court had convicted the appellants based primarily on the testimony of a single eye-witness, Yousaf (P.W.10), corroborated by the recovery of firearms. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the crime scene was disputed and contradicted by the Investigating Officer. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the witness's explanation for his presence at the scene was belied by the Investigating Officer's findings regarding the absence of a threshing floor nearby. Consequently, the Court held that the witness's testimony was unreliable and could not support a conviction. The appeal was accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the scene is proven to be doubtful.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an eye-witness whose presence at the scene is contradicted by the investigating officer?
  • Does the failure of a witness to provide a credible explanation for their presence at the scene of the crime render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction based on disputed eye-witness testimony and firearm recovery sustainable when the primary eye-witness's presence is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25
  leave to appealmurdersolitary eye-witnesscorroborationre-appraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from 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, while altering the death sentence of the first petitioner to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the reliance upon the solitary statement of a related eye-witness, the sufficiency of corroboration through circumstantial, medical, and recovery evidence, and whether the case warrants a re-appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the solitary statement of the eye-witness was sufficiently corroborated by recovery evidence, medical evidence, and the established motive. The key principle laid down is that a conviction can safely rest on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness if it is supported by reliable corroborative evidence such as recoveries, medical reports, and motive, and minor circumstantial inconsistencies do not warrant a re-appraisal of evidence by this Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the solitary statement of a related eye-witness?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise the evidence concurrently evaluated by the lower courts without strong justification?
  • Does the absence of a direct forensic link for circumstantial evidence vitiate the ocular testimony when otherwise corroborated?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Abdul Raheem vs Province of Punjab And Other1987 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-13
  Service TribunalImplementation of judgmentProvincial GovernmentService mattersJudicial directive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had partially accepted the petitioner's appeal regarding service-related grievances. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and determined that the Tribunal's judgment did not warrant interference, as the petitioner's core grievances had been substantially addressed. However, the petitioner contended that the Provincial Government had failed to implement the relief granted by the Tribunal. Expressing regret over the potential non-compliance, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a specific directive to the Provincial Government. The Court held that orders passed by a Service Tribunal must be implemented by the relevant government authorities in their true letter and spirit without delay. The principle established is that administrative authorities are legally obligated to execute the directions of a Service Tribunal promptly, and failure to do so constitutes a valid ground for judicial intervention to ensure compliance with the Tribunal's adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Provincial Government legally obligated to implement the judgment of a Service Tribunal?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue a directive to the Provincial Government to implement a Service Tribunal's decision if it has not yet been executed?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam vs Inspector General of Police And Another1987 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  service tribunaldepartmental enquiryadmission of guiltdischarge from servicepolice officialpetition for leave to appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his discharge from service as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and corruption following a departmental enquiry and had explicitly admitted his guilt during the personal hearing granted by the competent authority before the final discharge order was passed. His departmental appeal to the Inspector-General of Police was dismissed as time-barred, and the Service Tribunal subsequently upheld the discharge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee can challenge the legality of a departmental enquiry after having expressly admitted his guilt during the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where an employee admits his guilt upon being granted an opportunity to show cause, he cannot subsequently turn around and claim that the departmental enquiry was defective. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who has admitted his guilt during a departmental enquiry can subsequently challenge the legality of the enquiry proceedings?
  • Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation when departmental remedies were pursued out of time?
  • Does an admission of guilt during a personal hearing cure alleged procedural defects in a departmental enquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs Hassan Arshad and 10 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20
  subsequent investigationreport under section 173bail on meritscognizance of casecriminal procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order granting bail to the respondents, who were facing trial for offences under sections 307, 364, 365, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting a subsequent police investigation and submitting a second report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the trial court had already taken cognizance, and the propriety of granting bail under section 498 read with section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the number of police investigations into a crime is not limited by law, and a subsequent report under section 173 can be submitted even after cognizance has been taken by the court. The Court affirmed the High Court's order granting bail on merits and dismissed the petition, establishing that subsequent police investigations remain permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite earlier challans.

  Questions settled

  • Is a subsequent police investigation and submission of a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permissible after the trial court has taken cognizance of a case?
  • Does a subsequent negative police report debar the trial court from proceeding with the trial based on the original charge-sheet?
  • Can bail be granted under section 498 read with section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on general considerations of merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Sultan Ahmed And 5 Other1987 SCMR 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-02
  leave to grant appealconstruction of agreementpenalty clausepartnership accountsdebtor and creditorspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the lower courts' interpretation of an agreement between the parties. The core legal question involves the true construction of an agreement where the terms were allegedly camouflaged or incorrect, specifically whether the transaction constituted a genuine sale of property or a security arrangement disguised as a sale to secure the repayment of a past loan arising from a partnership account. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the lower courts applied correct legal principles in treating the sale as the primary object of the deal rather than as a penalty clause for the non-payment of a loan, particularly considering the debtor-creditor relationship and the disparity in literacy and influence between the parties. The Court held that these aspects required thorough examination and ordered the continuation of the status quo.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct construction of an agreement where the terms are alleged to be camouflaged or incorrect?
  • Whether a transaction should be treated as a primary contract of sale or as a penalty clause for the non-payment of a loan?
  • How does a disparity in literacy and influence between contracting parties affect the interpretation of an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan (Deceased) Through His L. Rs. vs Mst. Khurshid Begum And Other1987 SCMR 1652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-11
  land grantcancellation of grantnatural justiceres judicataleave to appealstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a suit challenging the cancellation of a land grant. The predecessor of the petitioners, Ismail Khan, held land on a 'Full Grant' basis, which was cancelled for non-payment. Although an Additional Commissioner initially restored the grant, citing a lack of notice and failure to comply with mandatory Standing Orders 10-A and 11, the Board of Revenue subsequently cancelled the grant. The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the cancellation was illegal, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court. The core legal questions involve whether the cancellation of the grant violated principles of natural justice due to lack of notice, whether the mandatory procedures under Standing Orders 10-A and 11 were followed, and whether a prior suit between the parties operated as res judicata. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the applicability of res judicata, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the land.

  Questions settled

  • Does the cancellation of a land grant without issuing notice to the grantee violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Does a failure to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Standing Orders 10-A and 11 render the cancellation of a land grant illegal?
  • Can a judgment in a previous suit act as res judicata if the reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit are different and distinct?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And 2 Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  criminal appealmurder convictionleave to appealcommon intentionconcurrent findingsappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioners were originally charged and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Rehmat A.I., occurring in March 1976 in the District of Sahiwal. The trial court had sentenced each petitioner to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the counsel for the petitioners and the caveator, the Supreme Court found no material evidence or legal grounds to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the lower court's decision. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in criminal cases absent compelling material demonstrating error or injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a criminal case where no material error is shown?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the appellate court finds no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And 2 Others vs The State1987 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10
  dying declarationocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealleave to appealmurder convictionevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the killing of two individuals and injuring another. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, specifically whether the deceased was in a fit mental state to make the statement, and whether the ocular testimony was reliable given alleged conflicts with medical evidence regarding the distance of firing. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, which had accepted the prosecution's case. The Court held that the dying declaration was credible, noting that the medical officer had stabilized the patient before recording the statement and that there was no evidence of tutoring. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts had sufficiently addressed the alleged discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be considered reliable if the deceased was initially in a serious condition but was treated and stabilized before the statement was recorded?
  • Does the absence of burning or charring on wounds necessarily invalidate ocular testimony claiming firing from close range?
  • Is a dying declaration rendered inadmissible if the relatives of the deceased were present at the hospital during the time the statement was recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdulhameed vs The State1987 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12
  interim bailmedical groundsevading arrestforgerycheatingcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a bail matter where the petitioner was charged with fraud, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a petitioner who has been granted interim bail on medical grounds, but is actively avoiding appearance before the High Court after the genuineness of his medical certificate was doubted, is entitled to be admitted to bail by the Supreme Court on the basis of a private medical certificate. The Supreme Court declined to grant bail, noting that the petitioner was evading arrest and failing to appear before the High Court despite orders to be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who is avoiding the process of the court and evading arrest after his interim bail conditions are questioned is not entitled to discretionary relief of bail from the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner who is actively evading appearance before the High Court seek discretionary bail from the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a private medical certificate advising bed rest is sufficient to grant bail when the genuineness of previous medical grounds is under doubt by the High Court?
  • What is the effect of a petitioner avoiding arrest and court appearance on his petition for leave to appeal in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel Khan vs Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore And Other1987 SCMR 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01
  land allotmentmukhbari applicationdouble jeopardyex parte orderadministrative circularevacuee propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the cancellation of a land allotment. The allotment, originally made to one Muhammad Aslam and later sold to a third-party purchaser, was previously investigated and found genuine by the relevant authority in 1969. Subsequently, on 29-6-1974, the petitioners filed a second application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, leading to an ex parte cancellation. The High Court restored the allotment, relying on a circular dated 2-7-1977 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which directed that no proceedings be initiated on suspect applications filed in the last week of June 1974. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the circular was intra vires as it aimed to prevent fraud and abuse of process. The Court ruled that an allottee cannot be vexed twice on the same grounds once the allotment's genuineness has already been established.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land be re-examined and cancelled on the same grounds after its genuineness has already been verified and cleared in a prior inquiry?
  • Is an administrative circular issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to prevent fraudulent proceedings on belated applications legally valid and binding?
  • Can a Settlement Commissioner decline to recall an ex parte cancellation order passed by their predecessor if the affected purchaser was condemned unheard?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22
  concession by counselcorruption casesreduction of sentencelegal representationaffidavit requirementappellate practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the sentences of the petitioner in corruption cases following a concession made by his counsel. The petitioner's counsel before the High Court had explicitly abandoned arguments on the merits of the cases, focusing solely on the reduction of sentences, a position the High Court accepted while noting that the merits of the cases did not favor the convict. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's new counsel attempted to challenge the validity of the concession made by the previous counsel, claiming it was unauthorized. The Supreme Court held that a mere verbal assertion challenging the conduct of a lawyer is insufficient to invalidate a concession made in court. The Court established the principle that to challenge a concession made by counsel as being without instructions, the party must provide a formal affidavit. As the petitioner failed to provide such an affidavit, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a concession made by their counsel in court through a mere verbal statement?
  • Is an affidavit required to substantiate a claim that a counsel's concession was made without instructions?
  • Does a court have the authority to dismiss a petition when the counsel fails to provide evidence of unauthorized conduct by previous counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Government of the Punjab Through Additional1987 SCMR 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-14
  service lawlimitation periodservice tribunaldepartmental appealtime-barred appealmercy petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service as time-barred. The petitioner, a police official, was dismissed from service in 1978 following allegations of intoxication. After his initial departmental appeal and revision were dismissed in 1979, the petitioner filed multiple subsequent mercy petitions and representations to the Inspector-General of Police, all of which were rejected. The core legal question was whether these repeated, unauthorized representations could extend the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioner had exhausted his statutory right of appeal and revision in 1979. The Court affirmed the principle that filing repeated, unauthorized representations or mercy petitions does not extend the period of limitation for seeking legal remedies, as such actions are futile exercises that cannot legally toll the limitation period prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of repeated mercy petitions or representations extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Can a litigant extend the limitation period by pursuing remedies not provided for in the governing service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Others vs Khuda E Dad1987 SCMR 1753(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04
  revisional jurisdictionHigh Courtleave to appealprocedural lawscope of revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question addressed is whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with the judgment and order of the trial court in a revision application when those specific trial court orders had not been challenged by the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this procedural and jurisdictional issue. The Court directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record during the current session, while granting liberty to the parties to file any additional documents deemed necessary. The matter essentially centers on the scope of the High Court's authority to revise orders that remain unchallenged by the litigants, highlighting the principle that appellate or revisional interference generally requires a proper challenge to the underlying order being reviewed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in a revision application with a judgment or order of the trial court that was not challenged by the parties?
  • Is the High Court's revisional jurisdiction limited to the specific orders challenged by the petitioners?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Others vs Hassan Din And Other1987 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-01
  special leave to appealland allotmentagricultural landRehabilitation Schemerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the allotment of a specific plot of land in favour of the petitioners to be illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the subject plot constituted agricultural land or land used for purposes subservient to agriculture within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Scheme, thereby rendering its allotment valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish that the plot was used for agricultural purposes, noting that the revenue record demonstrated otherwise. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's finding that the allotment was unlawful because the land did not qualify as agricultural land.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plot classified otherwise in the revenue record can be deemed agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Scheme without supporting evidence?
  • Does the occupation of a plot by multiple families preclude its classification as agricultural land for allotment purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailattempt to murderdiscretion of High Courtcriminal leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby bail previously allowed to the petitioners was cancelled. A criminal case was registered against the petitioners under sections 307, 325, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly attacking the complainants with sotas, resulting in multiple injuries including fractures. The Magistrate had initially granted bail on the ground that injuries were on non-vital parts and the prosecution story was doubtful. However, the High Court set aside the bail order, holding that the Magistrate improperly exercised discretion given the active involvement and presence of armed accomplices which prevented the victim from using his firearm. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and declined to interfere, affirming the cancellation of bail. The key principle laid down is that appellate or revisional courts will not interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by a High Court in cancelling bail when reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail granted by a Magistrate based on an improper exercise of discretion?
  • Does the presence of armed accomplices during an assault constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused are connected with the offense for bail purposes?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by the High Court in cancelling bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Sirajuddin vs Muhammad Khawaja1987 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-29
  leave to appealejectmentdefault in rentdistress warrantwaiver
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had allowed the tenant's appeal and set aside an order of eviction. The core legal question concerns whether the initiation of distress warrant proceedings and a subsequent compromise order regarding arrears of rent amount to a waiver of the landlord's right to seek eviction on the ground of default, and whether inconsistent pleas regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be raised. The Supreme Court held that the contentions advanced raise substantial questions of law of general importance and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the effect of distress warrant proceedings and compromises on a landlord's right to evict for default, along with the permissibility of inconsistent pleas, constitute substantial questions requiring formal appellate determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of distress warrant proceedings and a compromise on arrears amount to a waiver of the landlord's right of eviction for default?
  • Can a tenant simultaneously deny the relationship of landlord and tenant and plead that no default in rent has been committed?
  • What constitutes a proper tender of rent by a tenant to escape the consequences of ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam And Another vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 2053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10
  criminal petition for leave to appealmurdermurderous assaultcommon objectindividual liabilitysudden fightenhancement of sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a conviction and sentence for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involved the propriety of maintaining the murder conviction of the principal accused, the alteration of co-accused convictions from murderous assault and unlawful assembly charges to lesser offences, and whether grounds existed for the enhancement of sentences or the setting aside of acquittals. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly maintained the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the principal offender who inflicted the single fatal blow, and correctly found that individual liability applied rather than constructive liability under section 149, reducing the convictions of the co-accused to section 324 given the sudden nature of the fight and lack of specific attribution for the sole grievous injury. The petitions for leave to appeal by both the convict and the complainant were dismissed, affirming the principle of individual criminal responsibility in sudden affrays and upholding the appellate court's discretion regarding lesser penalties and modified convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether individual liability applies instead of constructive liability when a sudden fight occurs without proof of a common object?
  • Can a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 324 where injuries are simple or not specifically attributed?
  • Is a fatal stab wound attributed specifically to a single accused sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an appellate court's reduction of sentence or modification of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed And Another vs Khalilur Rehman And Another1987 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13
  property disputeattorney-client relationshiprevision petitionlocus standiprocedural proprietygift deedlegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a property dispute involving the appellants and the late Mst. Khijani. Throughout the initial litigation, the respondent acted as Mst. Khijani's attorney, never asserting any personal claim to the property despite allegedly possessing a gift/will-deed executed in his favor during the pendency of those proceedings. Following Mst. Khijani's death, the property rights were adjudicated in favor of the appellants as her legal heirs. The respondent subsequently introduced his claim based on the gift/will-deed for the first time during a revision petition before the Deputy Secretary. The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not introduce a new, independent claim as a 'second dispute' within the existing proceedings. The Court ruled that the respondent's conduct, having acted as an attorney without disclosing his interest, precluded him from interfering in the concluded dispute between the original parties. The Court set aside the orders of the Deputy Secretary, affirming that the respondent must pursue any independent claim through separate, appropriate legal proceedings rather than by intervening in the settled matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who acted as an attorney for a party in litigation introduce a personal claim to the subject property for the first time in a revision petition?
  • Is it permissible to raise a new, independent claim as a second dispute within the scope of an existing, concluded dispute?
  • Does the failure to disclose a claim during original proceedings preclude a party from asserting that claim in subsequent appellate or revisional stages?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman through His Lbgac Heires vs Prof. Ghulam Rasool Tanvir and Another1987 PLD Supreme Court 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08
  statutory tenancydisplaced persons actenhanced rentprospective effectnotice of demandejectmentdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court concerning the ejectment of a statutory tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether a transferee landlord's demand for enhanced rent based on the latest municipal assessment under Section 30(1)(a) operates prospectively from the date of service of notice or retrospectively from the date of transfer/antecedent period. The Supreme Court held that the demand for enhanced rent operates prospectively from the date the landlord serves a lawful notice of demand. The statutory relationship of landlord and tenant initially comes into existence on the terms and conditions previously applicable, including the previous rate of rent. The landlord's right to alter this rate by demanding enhanced rent based on municipal assessments takes effect only upon exercising that right via notice. Consequently, arrears of rent prior to the notice remain payable at the old rate. The Court concluded that the tenant's tender exceeded the lawfully due arrears, setting aside the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's demand for enhanced rent under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 take effect prospectively from the date of notice or retrospectively?
  • Can a tenant be declared a defaulter in rent where the landlord demands enhanced rent for a period prior to the notice of demand?
  • Does the statutory relationship created under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 initially bind the transferee to the previous terms of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Shah. vs Khurshid Ahmad Shah And Other1987 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10
  murderacquittaldying declarationeye-witness testimonyleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge of murder of an Advocate, Mubarik A.I Shah, who succumbed to twenty-four lathi injuries after making a dying declaration naming the respondents as his assailants. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the testimony of related eye-witnesses could not be relied upon due to strained relations and that the dying declaration was likely influenced by others. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the reliability and evidentiary value of a dying declaration and related eye-witness testimony in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the credibility of the dying declaration and its sufficiency as a basis for conviction or corroboration carried weight, necessitating a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration made by an injured person who was in his senses, supported by adequate opportunity to identify his assailants, requires careful judicial evaluation and can serve as a basis for conviction or independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration in a murder case?
  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses should be discarded solely on the ground of strained relations between the parties?
  • Does a dying declaration lose its credibility merely because the deceased had time to be influenced by other persons?
  • When can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Abdul Razzak And Another1987 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  malicious prosecutionorder of dischargedamagessecond appealgrant of leavecriminal discharge
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sind High Court in a second appeal, which decreed the respondent's suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The petitioner, a director of a company, had lodged a criminal report against the respondent, which subsequently resulted in an order of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the non-availability of witnesses. The respondent then filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court, but decreed by the High Court in second appeal. The core legal question involves whether an order of discharge constitutes complete exoneration and satisfies the legal ingredients of malicious prosecution, and whether damages were properly proved. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised involved substantial questions of law requiring detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the execution of the decree, and laid down that questions regarding the nature of an order of discharge and proof of damages in malicious prosecution suits warrant a full hearing on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to an acquittal or complete exoneration for the purposes of a suit for malicious prosecution?
  • Can a complainant be held liable for malicious prosecution when the accused is discharged due to the non-availability of police witnesses?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be set aside in second appeal without establishing proper legal grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Nimro And Other1987 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14
  Section 145 CrPCquashment of proceedingsSection 561-A CrPCbreach of peacealternative remedycivil pleadings in criminal casesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a property dispute in Karachi. The petitioner sought to challenge an order of the High Court that quashed criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court erred in relying upon pleadings from a separate civil suit as evidence in criminal proceedings and whether the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A when the respondents had already unsuccessfully pursued revision applications and possessed an alternative remedy under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's submissions regarding the High Court's reliance on civil pleadings and the propriety of invoking Section 561-A despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies warranted further consideration. The Court established that the availability of alternative remedies and the evidentiary value of civil pleadings in criminal quashment proceedings are significant legal issues requiring appellate review.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court rely on pleadings from a civil suit as evidence when quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when an alternative remedy exists under Section 145(5) of the same Code?
  • Does the dismissal of prior revision applications limit the High Court's scope for interference under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Shah And Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1987 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  evacuee propertytransfer orderconstitutional petitionspecial leave to appealproperty entitlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The petitioners, heirs of the original occupant, contended that the entire Khata measuring 4 Kanals and 4 Marlas had been transferred to their father, A.I. Haider Shah, and therefore, the subsequent transfer of a portion of this property to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 was illegal. The core legal question was whether the entire Khata was indeed transferred to the petitioners' predecessor, thereby precluding any further transfer to other parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the transfer order issued in favor of the petitioners explicitly limited the transfer to 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas, rather than the entire Khata. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' claim of full ownership was factually unsupported by the transfer documents. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that transfer entitlements are strictly governed by the specific area and rights recorded in the official transfer orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner claim ownership of an entire property when the official transfer order explicitly limits the transfer to a specific portion of that property?
  • Does the loss of an original file preclude the court from determining the extent of a property transfer based on the available schedule attached to the transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan And Others vs Swat Textile Mills Ltd. Haripur1987 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  transfer of proceedingsHigh Court Benchesadministrative powers of Chief Justicewrit petitionPeshawar High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, which transferred a pending writ petition from the Abbottabad Bench to the principal seat at Peshawar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Chief Justice possessed the authority to transfer proceedings between different Benches of the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the impugned transfer order was legally valid and fully justified. The Court relied on Rule 7 of the Peshawar High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1982, which explicitly empowers the Chief Justice to transfer any proceedings pending at the principal seat or a Bench to another Bench or the principal seat of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the Chief Justice's administrative power to manage the distribution of cases and transfer proceedings between Benches is clearly established by the relevant rules governing the establishment of Benches within the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court have the authority to transfer a pending writ petition from one Bench to another?
  • Is an order transferring a case between Benches of the High Court covered by the Peshawar High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs Messrs Esso Eastern Inc. And Other1987 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19
  industrial relationsessential servicestermination of servicejurisdictionreinstatementconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his service termination grievance by the Sind Labour Court, the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the Sind High Court. The core legal question involved whether an employee governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that where an emergency legislation provides a specific forum for resolving disputes and excludes the application of other laws, no other authority can act as a substitute. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to an establishment governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952?
  • Can another authority act as a substitute forum when an emergency statute provides a specific forum for dealing with violations?
  • Whether the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 bar proceedings for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs Ghulam Nabi1987 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19
  specific performancewritten statementdebarmentex parte decreeleave to appealadditional registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against a decree for specific performance, or alternatively damages, passed in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the Additional Registrar was justified in debarring the petitioner from filing a written statement and whether the subsequent decree was sustainable without considering the belatedly filed written statement. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to legally challenge or seek the setting aside of the Additional Registrar's order debarring him from filing a written statement, the subsequently filed written statement could not be considered, and the trial court's proceedings were proper. The Court laid down the principle that a party aggrieved by an order debarring them from filing a written statement must take appropriate legal steps to have that order set aside, failing which such a defense cannot be belatedly revived, and fresh pleas not raised in the lower courts cannot be urged for the first time before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a written statement filed after a party has been validly debarred from filing it be taken into consideration without the debarment order being set aside?
  • Whether a plea not raised before the Single Judge and the Division Bench can be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • What is the effect of failing to seek the setting aside of an order passed by an Additional Registrar debarring a defendant from filing a written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs Jehandad And Other1987 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  adverse possessionlimitation periodconcurrent findings of factinheritanceoccupancy tenancyregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the inheritance of occupancy tenancy land originally held by one Mali, who died in 1930. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who had been in possession of the disputed land since 1945, had matured their title through adverse possession, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' possession from 1945 to 1954 was based on a bona fide, albeit mistaken, belief of being rightful heirs, and therefore could not be characterized as adverse possession during that period. Adverse possession could only be reckoned from 1954, when their claim to inheritance was judicially rejected. Consequently, the suit filed in 1962 was within the 12-year limitation period. The Court affirmed that the High Court erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature and commencement of the respondents' possession in a regular second appeal. The key principle laid down is that possession held under a bona fide belief of entitlement as an heir does not constitute adverse possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does possession held under a bona fide belief of being a rightful heir constitute adverse possession?
  • From what date does adverse possession commence when a party in possession mistakenly believes they are the lawful heir?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of possession in a regular second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Chairman, Allotment Committee And Other1987 SCMR 2104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07
  land allotmentrehabilitation authoritiesfinality of orderslocus standiwrit jurisdictionsettlement of claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of land in Sahiwal District, originally held by the appellants' predecessor-in-interest. The appellants challenged the confirmation of allotments made to the respondents in 1951, arguing they were entitled to the benefit of a 1956 order by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, which had cancelled various allotments. Although that 1956 order was initially set aside by the High Court in 1957, the Supreme Court later reversed that High Court decision in a separate case (Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner). The appellants sought to leverage this Supreme Court judgment to challenge the respondents' 1951 allotments. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were not parties to the 1957 High Court proceedings and had not challenged the resulting finality of the respondents' allotments, could now claim the benefit of the Supreme Court's reversal of that 1957 decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the appellants failed to challenge the 1957 High Court decision, the respondents' allotments became final. The Court affirmed that a party cannot challenge final allotments based on a judgment to which they were not a party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment to challenge an allotment if they were not a party to the proceedings that established the finality of that allotment?
  • Does the failure to challenge a High Court decision regarding land allotment render the allotment final and immune to subsequent collateral challenges?
  • Does a party have locus standi to reopen settled allotment disputes based on a subsequent judicial reversal of a decision to which they were not a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs S.H.O. Police Station Shujabad And Other1987 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14
  habeas corpusillegal detentionleave to appealZina Ordinancecustody of minorcriminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought the recovery of a young girl, whom he claimed was his wife and was being illegally detained by her father. The respondent father had previously initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, registering a case under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alleging offenses under sections 10 and 11 of the Ordinance. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition warranted interference by the apex court. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary orders in habeas corpus matters absent compelling legal grounds or manifest error in the lower court's reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order dismissing a habeas corpus petition where no valid grounds for interference are shown?
  • Is a habeas corpus petition maintainable when criminal proceedings under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance are pending against the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Mujahid And Other1987 SCMR 1594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08
  criminal leave to appealsudden fightright of private defencemurdersentence enhancementacquittalwarabandi dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises two criminal petitions arising from a violent clash between rival parties over a dispute regarding warabandi, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries on both sides. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Mujahid and Muhammad Shahid under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting other co-accused. The High Court altered the judgment, prompting cross-petitions before the Supreme Court: one by the convict against his conviction and sentence, and another by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence and challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Shahid. The core legal question involved the determination of criminal liability, the applicability of the right of private defense, and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight attracting Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the grave injuries sustained by the accused and the existence of a sudden fight required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the convict for re-appraisal of his case under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, granted leave to the complainant solely on the question of sentence enhancement, and dismissed the petition against the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of sudden fight under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted in a cross-clash arising from a warabandi dispute?
  • Can a person who has sustained multiple grievous injuries during an attack claim the right of private defence even if the deceased arrived subsequently?
  • Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be maintained when the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence regarding a co-accused?
  • Whether the sentence of a convict should be enhanced when leave to appeal has been granted to examine the mitigation of his criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Abdul Nasir And Another1987 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27
  murderalteration of convictionsudden provocationexception to culpable homicidestab woundcriminal appealdefault sentence of imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave examines whether the accused-respondent's case fell under any exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, whether the alteration of his conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I was legal, and the legality of the sentence regarding fine. The prosecution alleged that the accused waylaid the deceased, a school-mate, and inflicted fatal stab wounds with a Chhuri following a property dispute between their families. The trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that no exception applied. The High Court altered the conviction to section 304 Part I. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in altering the conviction, as the pre-meditated attack, the weapon used, and the force applied clearly established intentional murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without attracting any exceptions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the conviction and sentence under section 302, and modified the default sentence for non-payment of the enhanced fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the act of carrying a concealed weapon to waylaid a victim constitutes pre-meditation excluding the application of exceptions to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without evidence of a sudden fight or grave and sudden provocation?
  • Whether a default sentence of imprisonment must be awarded when enhancing a fine payable as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And Others vs Muhammad Walayat Khan Through His Legal Heirs1987 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02
  pre-emptionforum of appealjurisdictionvaluation of suitSuits Valuation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the plaintiff valued the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs.24,300. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the plaintiff's legal representatives successfully appealed to the High Court. The vendees appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether the first appeal should have been filed in the High Court or the District Court. The core legal question examined was the determination of the forum of appeal based on the value given in the original plaint and the applicability of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The Supreme Court held that the value given in the original plaint controls the forum of appeal, and since the suit was valued at Rs.24,300, the appeal lay before the District Court and not the High Court. The Court further held that section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act cures defects of jurisdiction arising from under or over-valuation in lower courts, but does not apply where an appeal is presented to an entirely wrong appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the value given in the original plaint control the forum of appeal in pre-emption matters?
  • Does section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 apply when a memorandum of appeal is presented to a court that is not the appropriate appellate forum?
  • Does an improper valuation of a suit render a decree passed by a competent court a nullity in the absence of prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And Another vs Sardar Ali1987 SCMR 1145(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  pre-emptionnon-prosecutionadjournmentdismissal of petitionprocedural diligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the concurrent findings of three lower courts which had rejected the petitioners' claim of a preferential right of pre-emption. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the petitioners' counsel repeatedly sought adjournments over several months, specifically to obtain a copy of the plaint. Despite the Court granting multiple adjournments and explicitly warning that no further time would be allowed, the counsel again requested an adjournment on the final hearing date, citing an inability to contact the petitioners. The Court held that in light of the persistent failure to proceed with the case despite clear warnings and multiple opportunities, no further indulgence could be granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of diligence in pursuing litigation and the finality of court orders regarding scheduling and adjournments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel repeatedly fails to proceed after being granted multiple adjournments?
  • Is a court justified in refusing further adjournments after explicitly warning that no further time will be granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1987 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Through Legal Heirs vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1987 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-31
  spes successioniscustomary lawlimited ownerrelinquishment deedinheritanceMuslim Personal Lawreversionary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the validity of a 1958 relinquishment deed executed by Muslim female heirs regarding agricultural land held under limited interest pursuant to Customary Law. The core legal question was whether such a relinquishment, executed before the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, constituted a valid transfer of rights or an invalid transfer of spes successionis (a mere chance of succession). The Supreme Court held that the relinquishment deed was void and of no legal effect. The Court reasoned that at the time of the deed's execution, the female heirs possessed no vested interest in the property, only a contingent right to succeed upon the termination of the limited estate. Consequently, the transaction amounted to the transfer of spes successionis, which is prohibited under Muslim Personal Law, regardless of the non-applicability of the Transfer of Property Act in the region. The principle laid down is that a Muslim heir cannot validly relinquish or transfer a mere chance of succession, as such rights do not constitute a vested interest until succession opens.

  Questions settled

  • Is the relinquishment of a mere chance of succession (spes successionis) by a Muslim heir valid under Muslim Personal Law?
  • Does the non-applicability of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 in a region validate the transfer of a mere chance of succession?
  • Do female heirs holding property as limited owners under Customary Law possess a vested right to transfer their inheritance before succession opens?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Chaudhry, Sub Engineer vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha And Other1987 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  limitation periodcondonation of delayservice tribunalcertified copytime-barred petitionprocedural negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, filed 81 days after the decision, exceeding the 60-day limitation period by 21 days. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay based on the time taken to receive notice of the order and the time spent obtaining a certified copy. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner was entitled to credit for the period between the announcement of the order and its intimation, he was not entitled to credit for the 15-day period between applying for and collecting the copy. Evidence showed the copy was ready on the day of application, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in collection. The Court established the principle that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of time spent obtaining a copy if they were negligent in collecting it once it was ready, particularly when the established practice of the tribunal is to prepare copies promptly and inform applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to exclude the time taken to collect a certified copy from the limitation period if the copy was ready for collection on the day of application?
  • Does the failure to collect a ready certified copy from a tribunal constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
  • Is the period between the announcement of an order and its intimation to a party excludable when computing the limitation period for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir Shaikh And Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Dd Ghulam Abbas vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi1987 PLD Supreme Court 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-22
  arbitration awardconstruction contractextra work claimsinterest on damagesjudicial review of arbitrationerror of law on face of awardcontractual risk
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a construction contract dispute between a contractor and the Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT). Following delays and disputes over payments for extra work, the matter was referred to an arbitrator, who awarded the contractor a sum including interest. The High Court, in an intra-court appeal, modified the award, disallowing several claims and interest, citing contractual risks and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1940 by re-evaluating factual findings. The Court held that an arbitrator's findings on facts and interpretation of contract terms are generally final and not subject to judicial review unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award. The Court reinstated the arbitrator's findings on extra work items (a), (c), and (e), finding no error of law. However, it upheld the disallowance of overhead claims and interest for the pre-award period, affirming that interest cannot be awarded as damages for breach of contract absent specific agreement or statutory entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court re-evaluate factual findings made by an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Is an arbitrator competent to award interest as damages for breach of contract in the absence of an express agreement or statutory provision?
  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest for the period prior to the reference to arbitration?
  • Can an award be modified by the court if only specific portions are found to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque vs Government of Baluchistan And Other1987 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04
  pro forma promotionservice lawcivil servantdepartmental promotionretrospective promotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for pro forma promotion to the post of Horticulturist (Grade-18) with retrospective effect from 28-5-1979. The petitioner, an Agriculture Assistant, had his promotion deferred by the Departmental Selection Board due to a pending criminal case. Following his acquittal, he was promoted in 1982 and subsequently sought retrospective promotion and financial benefits, citing government policy regarding civil servants cleared of charges. The Service Tribunal rejected the claim, reasoning that promotion is not a vested right and that no junior officer had been promoted in supersession of the petitioner. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's arguments regarding the existence of specific government policy circulars governing pro forma promotion for employees cleared of criminal charges and the potential error in the Tribunal's assessment of his eligibility, found that the points raised deserved consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is promotion a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Does a government policy allowing pro forma promotion for employees acquitted of criminal charges create an enforceable entitlement?
  • Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion if no junior officer was promoted in their supersession?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque Khoso vs Government of Baluchistan1987 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  civil serviceprovincial allocationlachesleave to appealrepatriationconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Agricultural Engineer, challenged his repatriation from the Province of Baluchistan to the Province of Sind following the dissolution of the former Province of West Pakistan. Although initially allocated to Sind under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, the Governor of Baluchistan had previously accepted the petitioner's representation, confirming his status as a local resident and absorbing him into the Baluchistan provincial service. Years later, the Government of Baluchistan issued a notification repatriating the petitioner to Sind. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition on the grounds of laches, noting a nine-year delay and the petitioner's cessation of service. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions—specifically regarding the finality of the Governor's earlier absorption order, the lack of legal authority for the subsequent repatriation after years of service, and the necessity of a departmental inquiry prior to removal—raised substantial questions of law requiring further examination. The matter was admitted for hearing on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a provincial government repatriate a civil servant to another province after having previously absorbed that servant into its own cadre?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply when a civil servant has been actively pursuing representations before the government?
  • Is a departmental inquiry mandatory before a government can issue an order effectively removing a civil servant from its provincial service?
  • Does the Governor of a province retain the power to re-allocate a civil servant under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, years after the dissolution of the former Province of West Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid, P.S.I., Abbottabad vs Government of N. W.F.P. And 3 Other1987 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-17
  service lawadverse remarksconfidential reportmedical leaveservice tribunalleave to appealpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunal regarding adverse remarks in a police officer's confidential report. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in retaining specific adverse remarks concerning the petitioner's alleged failure to report for duty and misuse of medical leave, despite evidence showing the petitioner had reported for duty and that his medical leave had been duly sanctioned. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's order contained a factual inconsistency. While the Tribunal expunged certain remarks, it retained others that contradicted the established record of the petitioner's service history. The Court found that since the petitioner had indeed reported for duty and his medical leave applications were sanctioned by the relevant authorities, the remaining adverse remarks required further judicial scrutiny. The principle laid down is that adverse remarks in a confidential report cannot be sustained when they are factually inconsistent with the official service record, particularly where leave has been sanctioned by competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can adverse remarks regarding a failure to report for duty be sustained when official records confirm the officer reported for duty?
  • Is an order of a Service Tribunal legally inconsistent if it retains adverse remarks that contradict the factual record of sanctioned medical leave?
  • Does the sanctioning of medical leave by a competent authority negate an adverse remark alleging the misuse of such leave to avoid a posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Water and Power Development Authority And Another1987 SCMR 1942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  WAPDA employeeservice tribunal jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionremoval from servicedisciplinary proceedingsstatutory removal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the removal of the appellant, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), from service. The appellant had a history of disciplinary actions, including multiple charge-sheets and punishments, before being removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to interfere with WAPDA's orders regarding its employees, given the ouster of jurisdiction clause under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Relying on the precedent established in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), the Court affirmed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the appellant's service record, noting numerous allegations and prior disciplinary actions, and concluded that the removal under Section 17(1-A) was fully justified. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA regarding its employees in light of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
  • Is the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, subject to judicial review by the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Muhammad Ali1987 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  pre-emptionagricultural landleave to appealowner in the estate
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court which decreed a suit for pre-emption regarding agricultural land based on ownership in the estate. The core legal question is whether the lower forums erred in granting pre-emption in light of the judgment rendered by the Shariat Appellate Bench in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised requires detailed examination and consequently granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that petitions raising substantial questions regarding the applicability of pre-emption laws as interpreted by the Shariat Appellate Bench merit a full hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-emption decrees passed prior to the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah are sustainable?
  • Does the right of pre-emption based on being an owner in the estate survive the Shariat Appellate Bench ruling?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Represented By Legal Heirs And Others vs Muhammad Zubair1987 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionnuisancefactory operationsupreme court review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a civil revision against the refusal of a temporary injunction in a civil suit alleging nuisance caused by a factory. The High Court had partly allowed the revision by directing the respondents not to operate the factory during night hours after sunset. The core legal question involved the propriety of interfering with the High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned interim order of the High Court, noting that the petitioners had not been vigilant regarding the progress of their suit in the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed with directions for the trial court to expedite and conclude the proceedings within six months upon receipt of the returned record, establishing the principle that interim orders in nuisance suits will not be disturbed where trial delays are partly attributable to lack of party vigilance and record transmission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction in a nuisance suit?
  • What is the responsibility of parties regarding the progress of a suit when trial court records are summoned to a higher forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Islam Siddiqui1987 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02
  rent evictiontentative rent orderleave to appealcompliance with court ordersNazir's reportrent deposit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner for failing to comply with a tentative rent deposit order. The central legal controversy concerns whether the petitioner had timely deposited the rent for November 1977, as the High Court had determined that if the payment for that month was regularized, the subsequent payments would also be considered regular. The petitioner contended, supported by the Nazir's report, that he had indeed deposited the rent for November 1977, but the High Court had erroneously attributed the relevant receipt to a separate case between the same parties involving a different shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that a thorough examination of the record suggested the eviction order might have been passed in error due to this oversight. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction of the petitioner subject to continued regular rent deposits, and held that the matter required further consideration on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to properly attribute rent receipts to the correct case constitute sufficient grounds for an eviction order?
  • Can a tenant be evicted for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the record indicates the rent was actually deposited?
  • Is a Nazir's report regarding rent deposits a relevant document for determining compliance with a court's tentative rent order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Ghulam Muhammad And Other1987 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  specific performanceagreement of saleconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdictiontime is the essencepleadings and issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and dismissed the appellant's suit for specific performance of two agreements of sale. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction without material irregularity, and whether the High Court could non-suit the plaintiff on the ground that time was the essence of the contract without such a plea being raised in the pleadings or issues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the reliable concurrent findings of fact and in raising the plea of time being the essence of the contract for the first time in revision when it was not pleaded or framed as an issue. The Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact based on reliable oral and documentary evidence cannot be disturbed in revision without a material irregularity or illegality, and a new factual defense not raised in the written statement or issues cannot be entertained for the first time in revisional proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can set aside concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the readiness and willingness of a party in a specific performance suit without showing material irregularity or illegality?
  • Can the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction non-suit a plaintiff on the ground that time was the essence of the contract without the plea having been raised in the written statement or framed as an issue?
  • Does the failure of lower appellate courts to extensively discuss every piece of defense evidence amount to a material irregularity justifying interference with concurrent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim Warsi vs Chief Executive Independent Newspapers Corpn.1987 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07
  petition for leave to appealindustrial relationsworkman definitionmanagerial capacitysupervisory capacityconstitutional petitionnewspaper employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a former accounts officer who had resigned from his employment, sought financial benefits and filed an application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The lower forums and the High Court dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the petitioner was employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity as an Accounts Officer within the meaning of the Newspapers Employees Conditions of Service Act 1973, and was therefore not a workman entitled to maintain the application. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's factual finding was sustainable. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to controvert or dislodge the factual finding that he worked in a managerial or supervisory capacity, the High Court was justified in dismissing the constitutional petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee working in a managerial or supervisory capacity as an Accounts Officer in a newspaper establishment falls within the definition of a workman?
  • Can a former employee who has resigned maintain an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding the nature of an employee's duties when left un-controverted?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Zaheer Ahmad And Another1987 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-26
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencemurderyouthfulness as mitigating circumstancedeath penaltylife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant Abdul Ghafoor seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence from life imprisonment back to death. The respondent Zaheer Ahmad was originally tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Musawar and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, which sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the Sind High Court on the ground of the accused's youthfulness. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment based on the youthfulness of the offender in the circumstances of a calculated daylight murder. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the question of the adequacy of the sentence, finding force in the petitioner's arguments regarding the deliberate and pre-planned nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries inflicted. The principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine whether mitigating circumstances such as youthfulness were properly applied by the High Court in heinous murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether youthfulness of an accused is a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment in a case of deliberate murder?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death?
  • Whether the infliction of multiple stab wounds to vital organs by design constitutes an extenuating circumstance justifying a lesser penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdus Salam And Other1987 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-21
  settlement schemehouse transfermistake in transfer documentstenancy admissionpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which allowed the respondents' writ petition concerning the transfer of a disputed house originally allotted to their predecessor. The core legal question involved whether the incorrect house number mentioned in the transfer documents could be corrected as a clerical mistake and whether the petitioner, who was inducted as a tenant and acknowledged the tenancy, had a valid claim for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the mistaken house number in the transfer documents was unexceptionable, particularly since the petitioner himself admitted the execution of rent deeds and letters acknowledging tenancy. The Court concluded that the house stood already transferred to the respondents and refused to interfere with the High Court judgment. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who explicitly acknowledges tenancy and whose predecessor's transfer documents contained a genuine typographical or clerical error regarding property numbers cannot claim independent transfer rights to the detriment of the rightful transferees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an incorrect house number in transfer documents can be treated as a mistake subject to correction?
  • Can a tenant who has executed a rent deed and acknowledged tenancy claim transfer of the same property under settlement laws?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court finding of fact based on admissions made by a party and their counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1987 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15
  leave to appealinsanity pleaquestion of factcriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar, murdered Muhammad Abdullah, a Munshi at the Foodgrain Mandi, Okara, after the deceased refused to pay a demanded 'Jagga tax'. The petitioner was the sole accused in the case. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel raised the sole contention of insanity as a defense. The core legal question before the Court was whether the plea of insanity, having been adjudicated upon by the lower courts, could be re-examined at the stage of a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of insanity constitutes a question of fact. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not reconsider findings of fact determined by the lower courts at the leave to appeal stage. The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court reconsider a plea of insanity during a petition for leave to appeal when it involves a question of fact?
  • Is the plea of insanity considered a question of fact in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Sakhi Sultan And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-05
  bailleave to appealgrave and sudden provocationmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenges an order of the High Court of Sind disposing of criminal miscellaneous petitions relating to the grant of bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the facts as alleged by the prosecution disclosed a case of grave and sudden provocation covered by Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the High Court failed to consider this aspect. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding grave and sudden provocation had force and required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the facts alleged by the prosecution constitute a case of grave and sudden provocation covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Did the High Court fail to advert to the aspect of grave and sudden provocation while dealing with the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Rent Controller And Other1987 SCMR 2074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-29
  ejectmentreconstructionbona fide requirementsanctioned planlandlord and tenantrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of reconstruction and default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority both ordered eviction, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the landlord failed to satisfy the requirement of proving that the premises were 'reasonably and in good faith' required for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts already established the landlord's bona fides and reasonableness. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the settled principle that the production of a sanctioned building plan, coupled with the landlord's willingness to incur substantial reconstruction costs and risk the penal consequences of Section 13(5) of the Ordinance, sufficiently establishes bona fide intent and reasonableness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction must independently prove reasonableness and good faith if they have produced a sanctioned building plan?
  • What is the legal effect of the penal provisions in Section 13(5) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on proving a landlord's bona fides?
  • Does a landlord's desire to substantially develop and improve a property to make it commercially more beneficial satisfy the requirement of reasonable and bona fide reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs Water and Power Development Authority Lahore _1987 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayservice tribunaldepartmental appealtime-barredWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant, a former employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged his removal from service, which occurred on 4th January 1978. After filing a departmental appeal that remained undecided, the appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 25th June 1978, beyond the statutory limitation period. The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing ignorance of the law and alleging the removal order was void ab initio and mala fide. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal primarily to consider whether the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a larger bench due to a potential difference of opinion among its members. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was signed by both members, indicating no disagreement, and rejected the claim of discrimination. The Court affirmed that condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case, finding no merit in the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of whether there is sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal generally considered a question of fact?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with a tribunal's order based on an alleged difference of opinion among its members when the written order is signed by all members without indication of dissent?
  • Does the fact that other appeals may have been admitted to regular hearing by a tribunal automatically entitle an appellant to similar treatment without proof of similarity in facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali And Another vs The State And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  murderself-defencesentence enhancementcommutation of sentencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions arising from a criminal conviction: a jail petition by the convict, Abbas Ali, challenging his conviction and sentence for murder, and a petition by the complainant, Muhammad Tufail, seeking the restoration of the death penalty. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Rehman, receiving a death sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment while imposing a compensation order. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and whether the sentence reduction was appropriate. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defence, finding the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner's father inconsistent with the defence version, rendering it an afterthought. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that since the murder was not premeditated and occurred following an altercation involving the petitioner's father, the High Court's discretion to reduce the sentence was sound. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the conviction and the commuted sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the physical circumstances of the alleged struggle?
  • Is a sentence of death mandatory for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the absence of premeditation justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• A.R. Smith & Co. Through Zafar Lqbal And Another vs Grindlays Bank Ltd1987 SCMR 392(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• A.K.Khalid, Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab, Lahore And Others vs Rehmat Ali1987 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19
  proprietary rightsgovernment landcompromise decreepolicy changeland grant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had granted proprietary rights in Government land to the respondent. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel informed the Court that there had been a change in Government policy regarding the subject matter. Consequently, the petitioners indicated they would no longer object to the grant of the excess land, provided that specific conditions were fulfilled. The respondent's counsel agreed that his client would comply with these conditions. Both parties, along with a representative from the Board of Revenue, presented a signed compromise agreement to the Court. The Supreme Court accepted this compromise and disposed of the petition in terms of the agreement, with no order as to costs. The judgment essentially records the settlement reached between the parties based on the revised Government policy, thereby resolving the dispute regarding the proprietary rights without a contested adjudication on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition regarding the grant of proprietary rights in government land be disposed of based on a compromise between the parties?
  • Does a change in government policy regarding land grants constitute a valid basis for settling a pending dispute before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• A. R. Khan vs P. N. Boga through Legal Heir1987 PLD Supreme Court 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  evacuee propertycompromise decreeestoppelapprobate and reprobatesymbolic possessionconstitutional jurisdictionsettlement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property, Bungalow No. 1, Canal Bank, Lahore. The core legal question was whether a party to a compromise order, which had been sanctified by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, could subsequently challenge the transfer of the property in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the appellant had acquired valid possession entitling him to such transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the transfer. The Court ruled that the compromise order was a binding, lawful settlement that the respondent was estopped from repudiating after having accepted its benefits, specifically the continued occupation of the property. The Court emphasized that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the advantages of a compromise while challenging its obligations. Furthermore, the Court clarified that symbolic possession, when recognized by a valid compromise and the relevant authorities, suffices for the purpose of transfer under the settlement scheme. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, recalled the writ, and restored the orders of the Settlement Authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party to a compromise order, after accepting its benefits, subsequently challenge the validity of that order in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does symbolic possession of an evacuee property, established through a valid compromise, satisfy the requirement of possession for the purpose of property transfer?
  • Is a party permitted to approbate and reprobate by accepting the advantages of a court-sanctioned compromise while repudiating its obligations?
  • Does the doctrine of election apply when a party is not confronted with two mutually exclusive courses of action?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Hamid Sial vs The Federation of Pakistan1987 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13
  service tribunalupgradation of postcivil servantexecutive discretionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-5-1982. The petitioner, an Assistant Soil Survey Research Officer in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, sought the upgradation of his post to N.P.S.-17 with effect from 28-8-1972, parity with certain other posts in the Ministry, rather than from the later date of 21-10-1978 granted by the authorities. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the determination of the date for upgrading appointments lies within the discretion of the Government, while making a recommendation for the Government to examine the grievance. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal or the Court can interfere with the Government's executive discretion regarding the effective date of upgrading a civil servant's post. The Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law of public importance arises in the matter, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the timing of upgradation is a matter for the Government to determine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government has the discretion to determine the effective date for upgrading various appointments in public service?
  • Does the refusal of the Federal Service Tribunal to interfere with the executive date of a post's upgradation raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shammo Mai vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  bailabsconding co-accusedOffence of Zinacriminal procedurebail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, Mst. Shammo Mai, who was accused of offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, alongside an absconding co-accused, Shana. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's release would facilitate the absconding co-accused in seeking bail. The Supreme Court rejected the State's contention, reasoning that any future bail application by the absconding co-accused would be adjudicated on its own merits, specifically considering the fact of his abscondence. Finding the case fit for the grant of bail, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The decision reinforces the principle that the bail application of an accused should be decided on its own merits, independent of the potential tactical advantages it might offer to an absconding co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to one accused automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to bail?
  • Should a bail application be denied based on the apprehension that it might assist an absconding co-accused in seeking bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs The State1986 PLD Supreme Court 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-09
  blood feudappreciation of evidenceeyewitness credibilityleave to appealcriminal petitionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a murder conviction and connected acquittals stemming from an old blood feud between two families. The core legal question revolves around the proper appreciation of ocular testimony, specifically whether the principle that an eyewitness's credibility is indivisible applies—requiring independent corroboration against remaining accused when disbelieved regarding the majority—and whether the conviction of the sole remaining appellant could be sustained in the absence of such corroboration. The Supreme Court held that there was considerable force in the contentions that the High Court failed to properly apply well-established principles of evidence appreciation after rejecting the core of the eyewitness testimony and disbelieving the motive and abscondance evidence qua the co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both the convict and the State to examine whether settled evidentiary standards were correctly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent corroboration when it has been disbelieved regarding the majority of the co-accused?
  • Does the existence of a deep-rooted blood feud necessitate a stricter application of the rule of caution in assessing interested or partisan witness testimony?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused based on discredited ocular and abscondance evidence warrants the grant of leave to appeal by the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulefqar Ali vs Province of the Punjab1986 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-19
  rendition of accountsamendment of plaintrevisional jurisdictionmaintainability of suitbelated amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner for rendition of accounts against the respondent. The trial court framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and dismissed it without going into evidence. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction refused to allow an amendment of the plaint to convert the claim into one for payment of money, holding that it would set up a new case after inordinate delay. The core legal question is whether an amendment of the plaint seeking to change the nature of the suit from rendition of accounts to payment of money can be permitted at the revisional stage after prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were unexceptionable as the petitioner persisted with the original form of the suit for years and attempted to set up a new case at a belated stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint at the revisional stage to convert a suit for rendition of accounts into one for payment of money?
  • Does seeking a specific amount at the revisional stage amount to setting up a new case after inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Zoyab vs Hakeem Muhammad Fazal Haque1986 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23
  summary dismissalpower of attorneyforgery allegationratification of actstenant evictionAdvocate-on-Record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for the summary dismissal of an appeal filed by a tenant challenging his eviction from a shop, on the ground that the appellant did not sign the power of attorney in favour of the Advocate-on-Record and that the petition was filed by a third party through forgery. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal should be summarily dismissed due to alleged forgery and discrepancies in the appellant's signatures on the power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that the application lacks merit and dismissed it, ruling that since the appellant himself and the Advocate-on-Record both unequivocally affirmed and owned the signatures and the filing of the petition, minor spelling differences or variations in signatures of a poorly literate person do not invalidate the proceedings or establish forgery. The key principle laid down is that a litigant is entitled in law to own and ratify a power of attorney and the acts done thereunder, and visible or spelling differences in signatures alone do not constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss an appeal when the purported principal expressly owns them.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be summarily dismissed on the ground that the appellant's signatures on the power of attorney differ from those on previous judicial records?
  • Whether a litigant can own and ratify a power of attorney and the legal actions taken on their behalf notwithstanding formal defects?
  • Does a visible difference or variation in the spellings of a litigant's signatures by itself establish forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Zimpex Limited vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1986 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18
  self-assessment schemerevised returnincome tax assessmentwrit petitionpleadingstax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a dispute regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for assessment under the self-assessment scheme for the income tax assessment year 1983-84. The petitioner initially filed an income tax return but subsequently filed a document captioned as a 'revised return'. The Income-tax Officer denied the petitioner's request for self-assessment, determining that the filing of a revised return excluded the case from the scheme's purview. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, relying on the petitioner's own pleadings that the document was filed under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court addressed whether the mere captioning of a return as 'revised' could be disregarded when the petitioner had explicitly pleaded it as such in the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner's own admissions precluded them from arguing otherwise. The Court affirmed that a return filed under Section 57 falls outside the scope of the self-assessment scheme pursuant to the explanation to Section 59(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a revised return under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 exclude a taxpayer from the self-assessment scheme?
  • Can a petitioner contradict their own pleadings regarding the nature of a filed return during appellate proceedings?
  • Does a return of total income furnished under Section 55 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 include a return furnished under Section 57?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Mohiuddin Khan vs Secretary General, Finance And 4 Other1986 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15
  service tribunallimitation periodcivil servantrepresentationspecial leave to appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Department of Central Excises and Land Customs, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal as barred by time. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time spent on making multiple representations under the Civil Servants Act for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Services Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, finding that the statutory provision does not permit a series of successive representations to continuously extend the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the making of multiple or second representations does not entitle a civil servant to exclude time under the law for the purpose of overcoming limitation delays in service appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple representations made by a civil servant extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can time spent on a second representation be excluded for computing the period of limitation under the Civil Servants Act?
  • Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of one month is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarina Begum And Another vs Manzoor Elahi And Other1986 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-09
  Permanent Transfer Deedforged association deedres judicataburden of proofsettlement litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal concerning the partition of a disputed house transferred under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established that the deed of association and affidavit used to secure a Permanent Transfer Deed were forged and fabricated, and whether the civil suit was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of summoning and producing the original documents from the High Court, oral evidence alone was insufficient to prove forgery, making any examination of the res judicata plea a futile exercise. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that failure to produce primary documentary evidence regarding disputed thumb-marks is fatal to a claim of fabrication.

  Questions settled

  • Can the alleged forgery of a settlement deed of association be established solely through oral evidence without producing the original documents?
  • Whether the failure to summon original documents from the High Court in a civil suit is fatal to a plea of fabrication?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarin And Others vs Pir Muhammad And Other1986 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24
  review petitionadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionSupreme Court of Pakistanreargument of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against a previous judgment of the Court. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the judgment contained an apparent error of law by holding that the High Court lacked the power to record additional evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment did not hold that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence, but rather determined that the High Court was not justified in doing so under the specific circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the existence of a power is distinct from the justification for its exercise. Furthermore, the Court noted that the remaining grounds urged by the petitioner merely constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the appeal at the review stage. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to record additional evidence in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Is the justification for exercising a jurisdiction distinct from the existence of that power?
  • Can a review petition be used to reargue the original appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarif Ahmad Khan And 3 Others vs Province of the Punjab And Another1986 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03
  rejection of plaintpublic nuisanceprivate nuisancemining concessioncivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent rejection of their plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a representative suit seeking an injunction against the proposed auction and lease of an adjoining hill for excavating stones under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, alleging public and private nuisance. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of requisite sanction and whether a private nuisance was sufficiently disclosed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the substance of the plaint disclosed a case of public nuisance requiring sanction under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, though clarifying that the rejection of the plaint does not preclude recasting the grievance for personal nuisance, and noting that mining operations remain strictly regulated by the Mining Concession Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit concerning the excavation of stones near a locality primarily constitute a public nuisance requiring sanction under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint for public nuisance preclude plaintiffs from recasting their grievance to establish a private personal nuisance?
  • Does the mere leasing of an area for mining authorize the immediate undertaking of offensive mining activities without statutory permissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarif Ahmad Khan And 3 Others vs Province of Punjab And Another1986 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03
  rejection of plaintpublic nuisanceprivate nuisancecivil proceduremining concessionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent rejection of their plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a representative suit seeking an injunction against the proposed auction and lease of a site for excavating stones under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, alleging public and private nuisance. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for want of statutory sanction. The Supreme Court held that the substance of the plaint disclosed a case of public nuisance rather than private nuisance, rendering the suit incompetent without the sanction prescribed under Section 91. The Court also observed that the lease of the area did not authorize mining activities without requisite permissions under the Mining Concession Rules. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit concerning a public nuisance is barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of statutory sanction?
  • Does the lease of an area for mining automatically authorize the lessee to carry out offensive mining activities without obtaining prior permission under the Mining Concession Rules?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the grievance amounts to a public nuisance rather than a private personal nuisance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah And Another vs Safdar And Other1986 SCMR 1873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-24
  ejectmentdefault in rentpersonal requirementleave to appeallegal representativesstatutory tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected petitions for leave to appeal filed by landlords against tenants arising from ejectment proceedings. The original landlady sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement for her daughter. The Rent Controller ordered eviction for default but rejected the personal requirement ground. On appeal, the High Court set aside the eviction, holding that legal representatives of a deceased tenant are not liable for default committed prior to the tenant's death under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, and further that the personal requirement provision does not extend to the grandchildren of the landlord. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that important questions of law were raised regarding whether successors are liable for a deceased tenant's prior default and whether a child's personal requirement includes the use of their own children under the applicable rent law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legal representatives of a deceased tenant are liable for a default in rent committed by the original tenant during his lifetime?
  • Does the personal requirement of a landlord's child under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance encompass the requirement of the grandchildren of the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The Deputy Commissioner and s1986 PLD Supreme Court 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-19
  civil servicemisconductmajor penaltyshow-cause noticeservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsefficiency and discipline rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a civil servant for misconduct involving the tampering of official court records. The core legal question was whether, under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, a second show-cause notice must specify the exact major penalty proposed to be imposed, or if a general reference to 'a major penalty' suffices. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for a second show-cause notice is satisfied when the accused is informed that a major penalty is proposed. The Court reasoned that the specific nature and severity of the penalty are matters to be determined after the accused has been afforded an opportunity to be heard, and the authority retains the discretion to modify the proposed penalty based on the hearing. The principle laid down is that the law does not mandate the notification of the specific major penalty in the show-cause notice, provided the accused is given a fair opportunity to be heard regarding the imposition of a major penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a second show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 require the specification of the exact major penalty to be imposed?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by a Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Is it legally permissible for a disciplinary authority to inform an accused that 'a major penalty' is proposed without specifying which of the major penalties is intended?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Others vs Bashir Ahmad Khan And Other1986 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26
  specific performancetape-recorded evidenceadditional evidencediscretionary powerleave to appealproduction of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property instituted on September 4, 1980. During the proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Order XIII Rule 2 and Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to produce in evidence a tape-recorded cassette of a conversation between a plaintiff and a defendant. The trial court refused the application, and the High Court declined to interfere in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the refusal by the lower courts to admit additional documentary evidence at a late stage warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the trial court possessed discretionary power under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was exercised judiciously in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, and the High Court committed no defect in upholding it. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary exercise of power by a trial court in admitting or refusing late documentary evidence, when based on recorded reasons and consistent with procedural rules, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court has discretion to refuse the production of documentary evidence sought to be introduced at a late stage under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the High Court's refusal to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order on evidence be challenged before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether failure to file a list of documents in terms of High Court Rules and Orders permits the unrestricted late production of documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousaf and Another vs Muhammad Zubair and Another1986 PLD Supreme Court 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19
  landlord definitionMutwalliWakf propertySindh Rented Premises Ordinanceestoppel of tenantevictionpersonal bona fide use
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of two petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against a High Court judgment dismissing their First Rent Appeals against eviction orders issued under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The landlords, acting as Mutwallis (trustees) of a Wakf property, sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The primary legal question raised by the petitioners was whether Mutwallis, who do not own the property since ownership of Wakf property vests in the Almighty under Islamic law, qualify as 'landlords' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the statutory definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 includes any person authorized or entitled to receive rent. Furthermore, since the tenants had admitted paying rent to the Mutwallis, they were estopped from challenging their title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Mutwalli or trustee of a Wakf property qualify as a landlord under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tenant who has paid rent to a Mutwalli challenge the Mutwalli's title or locus standi as a landlord in eviction proceedings under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasin And Another vs The State1986 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07
  sodomycarnal intercoursesolitary testimonycorroborationmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a criminal conviction for sodomy could be sustained solely upon the solitary statement of the victim and an unproved chemical analyser report, particularly when medical examination occurred twenty-six hours after the incident. The core legal question involved the sufficiency and credibility of the victim's testimony and corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases. The Court held that the conviction of the appellants was well-founded, finding that the victim's testimony was trustworthy and corroborated by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence indicating the use of force and physical trauma. The Supreme Court established that there is no absolute rule of law or prudence requiring corroboration of a victim's testimony if it possesses the requisite quality for conviction, and that the absence of semen detection is not decisive when other medical indicators confirm the commission of the offense. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction rest solely on the solitary statement of the victim in a sodomy case?
  • Is corroboration of a victim's testimony strictly required by any rule of law or prudence?
  • Does the absence of semen traces alone negate the proof of carnal intercourse when other medical evidence establishes physical trauma?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs Government of Punjab And Other1986 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-29
  land acquisitionreturn of surplus landmarket pricecompulsory acquisitionoversight acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the decision of the High Court regarding the price demanded by the Government for the return of land acquired through an oversight and no longer required for the construction of a dam in Tehsil and District Attock. The core legal question was whether the Government could demand the prevalent market price from the original owner for returning land mistakenly acquired, rather than the original acquisition price. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding based on the statement of the Law Officer under Rule 14(2)(ii) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, that the Government must return the land at the original acquisition price minus the additional 15% given for compulsory acquisition. The key principle laid down is that surplus land erroneously acquired and subsequently returned to the original owner must be priced in accordance with the applicable land acquisition rules governing reconveyance or return.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land acquired through an oversight and no longer required by the Government should be returned at the prevalent market price or the original acquisition price?
  • What is the applicable rule governing the price at which mistakenly acquired land must be returned to its original owner in Punjab?
  Read full judgment →