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.

• Sheikh Abdul Haque vs Mst. Nargis And Other1986 SCMR 1820(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-24
  Child Marriage Restraint Actleave to appealdismissal of complaintacquittalpetition in liminecriminal procedureminor marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, alleging that seventeen respondents had collaborated to forcibly solemnize the marriage of a minor girl aged fifteen years with an accused person. The trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner sought leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petition in limine for lack of sufficient grounds. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal. Upholding the decisions of both lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the complaint was rightly dismissed and that no grounds for interference existed. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be granted where the trial court rightly dismissed a complaint under the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Haque And Another vs Dr. Safdar Bokhari And Other1986 SCMR 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-19
  Intra-Court Appealcompetency of appealnullity of judgmentcivil appealsSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil appeals arising from a common judgment passed in Intra-Court Appeals. The core legal question addressed is the competency of the Intra-Court Appeals filed before the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Intra-Court Appeals were incompetently filed and consequently declared the common judgment allowing those appeals to be a nullity. Additionally, connected civil appeals were disposed of in the same terms or dismissed accordingly. The key principle laid down is that an incompetent appeal cannot sustain a valid judgment, rendering any decision rendered thereon a nullity in the eyes of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal filed without legal competency renders the resulting judgment a nullity?
  • How should civil appeals arising from an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be disposed of by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali. vs Saeeda Khatoon And Another1986 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-07
  constitutional petitionleave to appealproperty transferresumption of propertysettlement departmentavailable property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which challenged the refusal of the settlement department to transfer a shop to him under Scheme No. IX. The property in question had been previously transferred to the respondent, and although an order of resumption was passed due to non-payment of the price, the department and the High Court found that the cancellation was flawed because an application for reduction of the price was still pending and proper notice of cancellation had not been served in accordance with the law. The core legal question was whether a property subject to an unresolved price reduction application and defective cancellation notice could be treated as an available residual property for transfer to a third party. The Supreme Court held that while a pending price reduction application remained undisposed of, the property could not be validly resumed, and the High Court's factual findings regarding defective service of notice were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that flawed resumption proceedings do not render a property available for disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property can be validly resumed for non-payment of price while an application for reduction of price is still pending?
  • Does the mere passing of a resumption order render a property available for future disposal as a residual property regardless of the legality of the resumption?
  • Can a High Court's finding of fact regarding the lack of proper notice before property cancellation be interfered with in the absence of contrary material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali And Another vs Muhammad Yusuf Shah And Other1986 SCMR 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30
  Section 145 CrPCbreach of peaceproperty disputeMagistrate jurisdictionsummary proceedingscivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition arising from proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to initiate or continue proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. when there is no evidence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the High Court and the revisional court, noting that the Investigating Officer explicitly testified that no such apprehension existed. Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate lacked the necessary foundation to invoke jurisdiction under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The ratio of the decision is that the summary procedure under Section 145 is strictly contingent upon the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace; absent this, the dispute must be resolved through civil litigation. The petition was dismissed as frivolous with costs awarded to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is no apprehension of a breach of the peace?
  • Is the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace a jurisdictional prerequisite for action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a property dispute be referred to civil courts when the requirements for Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Hussain And Others vs Jaffar Raza And Other1986 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-18
  evacuee landexcess allotmentproduce index unitsfinality of judgmentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-11-1985, which set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case. The core legal question involved whether a subsequent bench of the High Court could reinterpret or interfere with an earlier finalized judgment of the same court that had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that since the earlier High Court judgment dated 30-10-1979 interpreting the remand directions had not been challenged and had become final, it was not open to subsequent benches or authorities to reopen or re-examine the settled interpretation. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an unchallenged judgment or order attaining finality is binding on the parties and subordinate authorities, and subsequent proceedings must strictly conform to it without unwarranted interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unchallenged judgment of a High Court attaining finality can be reinterpreted in subsequent proceedings?
  • Can subordinate authorities depart from the explicit directions given in a remand order?
  • Whether a claimant is entitled to purchase excess land under the settlement instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharaf Din vs Qazi Abdul Jalil And Another1986 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-02
  Lambardar appointmentConstitutional petitionJudicial restraintAdministrative discretionLeave to appealRevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court ought to interfere with the selection of a Lambardar made by statutory functionaries. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to substitute its own view for that of the competent statutory authorities in matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar. The Court relied on established jurisprudence, noting that judicial restraint is appropriate when reviewing the discretionary selection process of such functionaries. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge and refused the leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that courts should not interfere with the administrative discretion of revenue authorities in Lambardari appointments absent compelling legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court substitute its own view for that of statutory functionaries in the selection of a Lambardar?
  • Is the appointment of a Lambardar a matter subject to interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shana Meer vs Gul Noor And Another1986 SCMR 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19
  pre-emptionpossession through pre-emptionrevenue recordKhasra Girdawaritenancycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner Shana Meer regarding a share of land against the respondents Gul Noor and another. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court accepted the petitioner's appeal and decreed the suit. However, the Peshawar High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside the appellate court's judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity against the respondents, whose status as tenants was established by the revenue record. The Supreme Court held that the revenue records, specifically Khasra Girdawaris which were not successfully rebutted or discredited through cross-examination of the Patwari, sufficiently established that the respondents were tenants of the disputed Khasra numbers. The petition was accordingly dismissed as frivolous with forfeiture of costs, affirming the principle that entries in the revenue record are accepted in pre-emption cases unless rebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether entries in the revenue record regarding tenancy are sufficient to establish the status of a tenant in pre-emption suits unless successfully rebutted?
  • Does a pre-emptor with contiguous land succeed against established tenants of the suit land?
  • What is the evidentiary value of Khasra Girdawaris when the Patwari is not cross-examined to discredit them?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin And Others vs The Rainbow Dyeing and Printing1986 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23
  consent decreecompromiseamendment of decreeaccidental slipinherent powerslabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Sind High Court rejecting an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the appellants to correct alleged miscalculations in the amounts awarded to individual workmen under a consent judgment and compromise. The core legal question was whether a consent decree and compromise agreement could be amended under inherent powers to alter individual allocations when an accidental slip in calculation was alleged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the application, as the compromise explicitly set specific sums for each workman in full and final settlement, and the total stated in the agreement was the result of an error rather than an intention to distribute a fixed aggregate pool. The key principle laid down is that a court cannot amend a consent decree or compromise to alter individual entitlements agreed upon by the parties unless there is a genuine common mistake regarding the whole bargain.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a consent decree based on a compromise can be amended under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to alter individual allocations?
  • Can a court correct an alleged miscalculation in a compromise agreement that has been made the rule of the court?
  • Is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent to change the specific terms and amounts settled between parties in a consent judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Hussain vs Foreign Secretary1986 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06
  service lawdaily allowanceforeign servicefinancial instructionsforced haltservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his entitlement to daily allowance while stationed in Iran. The petitioner, a stenotypist in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sought daily allowance for a period between his relief from duties in Iran and his return to Pakistan, arguing that his extended stay was necessitated by his daughter's illness and the requirement to obtain a travel certificate. The core legal question was whether this period of stay at the station of duty constituted a "forced halt en route to the place of duty" under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' financial instructions, thereby entitling the official to daily allowance. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the stay at the station of duty did not qualify as a "halt en route" under the relevant financial regulations. The Court affirmed that daily allowance provisions for forced halts apply strictly to transit situations, not to delays occurring at the original place of duty following a transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stay at a station of duty following a transfer order qualify as a 'forced halt en route' for the purpose of claiming daily allowance?
  • Are financial instructions regarding 'forced halts' applicable to delays occurring at the place of duty from which an official is transferred?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamoon and Others vs Ahmad and Other1986 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-17
  specific performanceagreement to sellimperfect titlealienationMartial Law Regulationland transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The petitioners had entered into agreements to sell land they had purchased under Martial Law Regulation No. 64, despite a restriction in the Sale Scheme (paragraph 32(c)) prohibiting alienation without prior permission. The petitioners argued that the agreement was void due to this restriction. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell does not constitute an 'alienation' prohibited by the scheme. Furthermore, applying Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, the Court affirmed that where a person enters into an agreement to sell property with an imperfect title but subsequently acquires full ownership, they are bound to fulfill the agreement. The Court concluded that the restriction against alienation did not invalidate the agreement to sell, and the respondents were entitled to specific performance once the petitioners became full owners of the land.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell land constitute an 'alienation' under a scheme prohibiting the sale of land without prior permission?
  • Is an agreement to sell property void under the Contract Act 1872 if the seller initially lacks full title but acquires it subsequently?
  • Under Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, is a seller bound to fulfill an agreement to sell if they acquire the property interest after the agreement is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel And Another vs The Deputy Commissioner Sanghar And Other1986 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14
  revenue mutationcancellation of mutationprinciples of natural justiceopportunity of hearingremand orderallegation of fraudconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of revenue mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners following their purchase of disputed land under a registered sale-deed. The Mukhtiarkar and the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar had set aside/cancelled the revenue entries on the ground that the original allotment was based on bogus Rehabilitation certificates. The High Court declared the impugned administrative orders invalid for violating principles of natural justice as no hearing was afforded, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to take fresh action regarding correction of mutation after hearing the affected parties. The petitioners sought full declaratory and injunctive relief before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in view of serious allegations of fraud and forgery regarding revenue entries, the High Court rightly remanded the matter for fresh determination after due notice to the parties. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed that procedural natural justice must be complied with while remanding serious fraud inquiries to competent revenue authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether administrative orders cancelling revenue mutation entries without providing an opportunity of hearing are invalid for violating principles of natural justice?
  • Whether the High Court properly exercises its constitutional jurisdiction by remanding a matter involving allegations of fraud and forgery to the competent authority for a fresh hearing?
  • Can a purchaser of property seek absolute injunctive relief to prevent revenue authorities from investigating alleged fraudulent antecedent title entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Ghulam Rasul vs Mst. Farhat Begum1986 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-08
  leave to appealremand of casestatutory noticedisplaced personsrelationship of landlord and tenantejectment proceedingsrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-tenant sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment in a second appeal, which had remanded the ejectment matter to the Rent Controller to frame a proper issue regarding the service of statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and to decide it within two months. The core legal question concerned whether remand was justified where the original issue framed by the Rent Controller did not correctly reflect the controversy over the service of notice and whether reliance on documents present on the file but not formally tendered in evidence warranted a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the remand was proper to ensure a just and fair adjudication in advancement of substantial justice, eliminating technicalities in rent control proceedings. The Court established that where parties are not misled by an incorrect issue but material documents remain unadmitted on record, a remand allowing parties to lead evidence is permissible and does not prejudice the tenant in possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can remand an ejectment case to frame a correct issue regarding the service of statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the presence of unadmitted documents on the judicial file concerning statutory notice justify remanding the case for proper adjudication?
  • Whether the framing of an incorrect issue by the Rent Controller vitiates the proceedings where the parties were aware of the actual controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Hamid vs President, Cantonment Board And Other1986 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-02
  nomination papercantonment board electiondisqualificationincorporation by referenceconstitutional jurisdictionelectoral rollmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had refused relief to a candidate whose nomination paper for election to the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, was rejected by the authorities. Although the High Court found all initial grounds for rejecting the nomination paper to be without merit, it dismissed the candidate's constitutional petition on a new, suo motu ground involving a statutory disqualification introduced by the Cantonments (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, which incorporated by descriptive reference provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions pertained to the propriety of the High Court raising a new ground of fact and law in constitutional jurisdiction, the proper interpretation of statutes incorporated by descriptive reference, and whether the appellant suffered from electoral and political disqualifications. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by resting its decision on a new factual inquiry not considered by the statutory authorities, and that the disqualification proviso exempted former members of the Cantonment Board. Furthermore, clerical errors in electoral rolls and unproven allegations of misconduct could not legally disqualify a candidate. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can dismiss a petition on a new ground of fact and law not considered by the original statutory authorities?
  • How should statutory provisions incorporated into another statute by descriptive reference be interpreted regarding their provisos and exceptions?
  • Does a clerical error in an electoral roll misprinting a candidate's name invalidate their nomination for election?
  • Can unproven allegations of misconduct and past temporary contractual relationships with a local body constitute valid grounds for disqualifying a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Sarwar Khan And Others vs Hashim Khan1986 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-07
  pre-emptionpecuniary jurisdictionguardian-ad-litemrevisional jurisdictionprocedural defectleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed civil revisions arising from pre-emption suits. The petitioners challenged the validity of the decrees on two primary grounds: first, that the initial filing of the suits in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the subsequent decrees nullities; and second, that the appointment of guardians-ad-litem for minor defendants was procedurally improper. The Supreme Court examined these contentions and found them meritless. Regarding the jurisdictional argument, the Court held that Section 11(b) of the relevant statute provided a complete answer, precluding the challenge. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to raise these objections before the appellate court, thereby depriving the judicial process of the opportunity to rectify any technical defects. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the conduct of the petitioners in withholding these pleas at the appropriate stage barred them from raising them in revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that procedural objections must be timely raised to allow for remedial measures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial filing of a suit in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction render subsequent decrees a nullity?
  • Can a party raise objections regarding the appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for the first time in revisional jurisdiction if they failed to raise them before the appellate court?
  • Does the failure to raise procedural objections before an appellate court preclude a party from seeking relief on those grounds in a higher forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Iqbal And 11 Other1986 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01
  ejectmentrent controllerdeposit of rentstriking off defenceSind Rented Premises Ordinancedefault in rent deposittechnical default
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller directed the tenants to deposit arrears and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 35 per month, and further ordered them to withdraw amounts previously deposited in a separate miscellaneous rent case and redeposit them in the ejectment proceedings. Upon the tenants' failure to redeposit the withdrawn amounts, the Rent Controller struck off their defence and ordered eviction. On appeal, a Single Judge of the Sind High Court set aside the eviction order, holding that the deposit order contained patent contradictions regarding the period of arrears and that the failure to transfer the previously deposited amounts constituted a mere technical default. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the landlord's petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's view that the deposit order was contradictory and that payments already duly deposited in court in the landlord's name substantially satisfied the legal requirements, rendering any technical non-compliance insufficient to warrant striking off the defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller's order for deposit of rent containing patent contradictions regarding arrears can form the basis for striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to physically withdraw rent deposited in a separate miscellaneous case and redeposit it in the ejectment case amount to a fatal default warranting eviction?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding an ejectment case where the initial rent deposit order suffers from internal contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan And 3 Others vs Additional District and Sessions Judge1986 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06
  election petitiondistrict council electionsinfructuous petitionfresh electionswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition challenging orders related to District Council Elections in Union Council Dandot, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, where the petitioner contested for one of two multi-member seats and was defeated. After filing an election petition, the Election Tribunal declared the election as a whole to be void upon a joint statement of counsel and ordered fresh elections. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition and an intra-court appeal in the High Court, both of which were unsuccessful or dismissed as not maintainable, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, fresh elections were held and the petitioner was again defeated, although formal notification of the result was stayed by the court. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and subsistence of the challenge after fresh elections had been conducted. The Supreme Court held that since the elections had already been held and the petitioner was again defeated, the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it accordingly. The key principle laid down is that a petition challenging an election order becomes infructuous when the subsequent fresh elections directed by the tribunal have already taken place.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition challenging an election tribunal's order to hold fresh elections become infructuous when the fresh elections are subsequently held?
  • Whether an intra-court appeal against an interim order refusing a stay of election is maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs The State1986 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdervicarious liabilitycommon intentionocular testimonytransportation for lifecriminal appealbeneficial provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, originating from a murder case where the appellant Shahadat Ali was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, addressed whether the ocular testimony was of sufficient quality to sustain the conviction and whether the ingredients of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were present to establish vicarious liability. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting inconsistencies and attempts by the closely related parties to soften the blow for the accused, but found that the appellant and his co-accused father actively participated in the sudden murderous assault. The Court held that a common intention developed at the spot and the exact identity of who dealt the fatal blow was inconsequential for establishing liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life as applicable prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, and granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down relate to the assessment of ocular testimony in cases involving close relatives, the application of vicarious liability under section 34 for a suddenly developed common intention, and the correction of statutory sentencing terms.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony containing inconsistencies and attempts by close relatives to soften evidence can sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a suddenly developed common intention during a scuffle satisfy the requirements of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the identity of the specific assailant who dealt the fatal blow consequential when a common intention is established among multiple participants?
  • What is the correct statutory sentence for murder committed prior to the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance when a death sentence is commuted?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs Mubarik Shah and Another1986 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-06
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationsuppression of material factsmisrepresentationcriminal appealdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by the complainant challenged the grant of pre-arrest bail to respondent Mubarik Shah by the High Court in a case under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite having misrepresented and suppressed material facts regarding his prior bail applications before the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed guilty of suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the record in his subsequent bail applications, conduct which could lead to a grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, directing him to surrender into custody while clarifying that he could seek post-arrest bail on merits. The key principle laid down is that a party who indulges in the suppression of material facts or misrepresentation in judicial proceedings is disentitled from claiming or retaining discretionary equitable relief such as pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts in prior bail applications?
  • Does concealment of the dismissal of an earlier bail petition constitute sufficient ground to set aside an order granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a party guilty of misrepresentation in obtaining discretionary relief be allowed to retain the benefit of such bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs Mubarak Shah And Another1986 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21
  pre-arrest bailleave to appealforum shoppingsuppression of factsprocedural misconductbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, alleging that the respondent engaged in forum shopping and suppression of material facts. Specifically, it was contended that the respondent initially filed a pre-arrest bail application before an Additional Sessions Judge, where notice was issued but no interim relief was granted. Subsequently, without disclosing the pendency of the first application, the respondent filed a second bail application before a different Additional Sessions Judge in the same jurisdiction, obtaining interim relief. After the second application was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the respondent's absence, the respondent approached the High Court for bail, again failing to disclose the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court found that these allegations regarding the respondent's conduct and the suppression of facts warranted a deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's order was sustainable in light of the respondent's alleged procedural misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding prior bail applications constitute grounds for refusing pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a petitioner who engages in forum shopping by filing multiple bail applications in the same jurisdiction be granted relief?
  • Is the concealment of a pending or previously dismissed bail application a valid ground for challenging a High Court order granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali And Others vs Rai Abu Saleh And Other1986 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01
  inheritance disputeleave to appealadmissibility of evidenceproof of relationshipwitness testimonystatus quo order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal in an inheritance dispute. The central factual controversy is whether a woman named Sahibzadi was the widow of the deceased, Amir Ali. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, and the High Court affirmed that decision. The petitioners challenged the evidentiary basis of the lower appellate court's finding, arguing that the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses regarding the relationship was inadmissible under the Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, the petitioners contended that the relationship was not proven according to the definitions of 'proved' under the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan determined that the legal question raised regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence required deeper consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the evidence regarding the marital status of the deceased, while ordering that the status quo regarding possession be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of witnesses regarding a marital relationship admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of a relationship under the definition of 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Can a finding of fact based on limited witness testimony be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman And Others vs Muhammad Azam And Other1986 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-22
  civil petition for leave to appealjurisdiction of civil courtswithdrawal of writ petitionpermanent entitlement of landcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from four civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which allowed the contesting respondents to withdraw their writ petitions and file civil suits to vindicate their property rights, with observations that the suits be decided on their own merits. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court's direction to decide the forthcoming civil suits on merits would preclude civil courts from considering objections regarding their lack of jurisdiction, particularly where petitioners claimed permanent entitlement to the land. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners are entitled to raise all legal pleas in their defence—including the question of the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suits—notwithstanding the High Court's observations. The Court laid down the principle that granting liberty to file a civil suit does not bar the defendant from raising jurisdictional objections, and ordered that while the suits may proceed, no final decision shall be rendered by the civil court during the pendency of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's observation to decide a civil suit on its own merits precludes a party from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction?
  • Can civil courts entertain suits regarding property where permanent entitlement has been granted?
  • Whether a civil court can take a final decision during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Dewana And Other1986 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-25
  non-prosecutiondismissal of appealout-of-court settlementappellate procedureabsence of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the appellant, Shah Muhammad, against the respondents, Dewana and others. The proceedings were marked by the absence of the appellant and any legal representation on his behalf. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the underlying dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement. Given the appellant's failure to appear or pursue the matter, the Court addressed the procedural status of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. The Court made no order regarding costs, effectively concluding the litigation based on the appellant's lack of interest and the reported settlement between the parties. This decision reinforces the principle that the Court will not entertain appeals where the appellant fails to attend or prosecute the matter, particularly when the underlying dispute has been resolved privately by the parties involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed by the Supreme Court for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to attend?
  • Does the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal if the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. Mandan And Another1986 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16
  customary lawsuccessionpleadingsspecial customcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute relates to a parcel of land originally belonging to Sher Muhammad, whose son Rehmat Ali died issueless in 1943, prompting a succession battle between his step-brothers and his mother. The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership based on general customary succession, which was initially dismissed by the trial court, accepted by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court on the basis of a special family custom entitling the mother to succeed. The core legal question was whether a decision could rest on a special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement, despite a broad issue having been framed regarding who constituted the valid legal heirs. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the approach of ignoring the established special custom on technical grounds of pleading was artificial, as the issue framed was wide enough to encompass the competing claims of heirship based on evidence adduced by both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decision be based on a special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement but covered by a general issue of legal heirship?
  • Whether the failure to frame a specific issue regarding a special custom vitiates a finding supported by evidence on record?
  • Who is entitled to succeed under custom when a male owner dies issueless and leaves behind step-brothers and a mother?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Mandan And Another1986 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16
  customary lawsuccessionspecial custompleadings and issuescivil procedurelast male ownerinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  The present matter arises from a civil dispute concerning the succession of land measuring 710 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in District Sheikhupura, originally owned by one Sher Muhammad. Following the death of Rehmat Ali, son of the deceased, without issue or a widow, mutation was made in favour of his mother under customary law. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership as successors of Sher Muhammad, which was initially dismissed, then decreed in first appeal, and subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court based on a special custom. The core legal question was whether a court can decide a case based on a special custom regarding succession when the general issue of heirship was framed and evidence thereon was led without specific pleadings of special custom. The Supreme Court held that the broad issue regarding valid legal heirs encompassed evidence of special custom, and technical objections regarding lack of specific pleadings or issues are untenable when parties understood the contest and led evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision can be made to rest on a ground regarding special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
  • Does a general issue regarding who were the valid legal heirs of a deceased person at the time of his death encompass the examination of a special custom?
  • Can an appellate court's approach be considered technical and artificial if it ignores established evidence on record merely because no specific issue was framed regarding a special custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiqul Hassan Shah vs Punjab Service Tribunal Through Its Chairman1986 SCMR 768 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12
  service tribunalremoval from serviceleave to appealsubstantial question of lawpublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an ex-Kanoongo whose removal from service by the District Collector was upheld in departmental appeal by the Commissioner and subsequently by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any substantial question of law of public importance. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution will not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates a substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal without establishing a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution in the absence of a question of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Ahmad vs The State1986 SCMR 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01
  murderdeath sentenceleave to appealdelayed petitionocular testimonymitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of his mother, with his jail petition being barred by 252 days. The prosecution case, established through the testimony of the maternal-grandmother and two independent eye-witnesses, was that the petitioner demanded money, and upon refusal, stabbed his mother to death. Both the trial court and the High Court concurrently believed the prosecution witnesses and maintained the conviction and death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances. In his petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner admitted to the stabbing for the first time, offering an uncorroborated explanation regarding a family dispute over property and ornaments. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on the eye-witness testimony, that the petitioner's belated explanation found no support from the record, and that no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a belated jail petition for leave to appeal with an unexplained delay can be entertained without sufficient cause?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether an uncorroborated explanation raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can displace consistent ocular testimony believed by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaat Ahmad And Others vs Government of Punjab And 2 Other1986 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-29
  service lawlimitation periodundue influenceabsorption of surplus employeesseniorityservice tribunalofficiating appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the service status and seniority of a former Thal Development Authority employee absorbed into the Irrigation Department. The respondent challenged his appointment as an officiating Executive Engineer, alleging that a prior written undertaking accepting this status was obtained through undue influence. The Service Tribunal ruled in his favor, declaring his appointment permanent and adjusting his seniority. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred, as no right of appeal or representation exists against an order passed by the Governor under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, and repeated representations do not extend the limitation period. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in adjudicating allegations of undue influence against a specific officer without impleading him as a party. On merits, the Court clarified that surplus employees absorbed into new departments are treated as direct recruits, not entitled to automatic confirmation, and their seniority is determined by the appointing authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent's service appeal was dismissed as incompetent and meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does a representation against an order passed by the Governor of the Punjab lie under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Can a service appeal be maintained against an order of the Governor when the statutory limitation period has expired?
  • Are surplus employees absorbed into a new government department entitled to automatic confirmation in their posts?
  • Can a Service Tribunal adjudicate allegations of undue influence against a specific public official without impleading that official as a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad vs Khan Poor1986 PLD Supreme Court 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-25
  pre-emptiontenancyJamabandicultivation columnLagan columnburden of proofrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellant-vendee asserted a superior right of pre-emption based on his status as a tenant on a portion of the disputed land. The core legal question was whether, in the event of a conflict within the Jamabandi (record of rights), the entry in the cultivation column should take precedence over the entry in the Lagan (rent) column. The respondent argued that the Lagan column, which indicated the appellant was a mortgagee without payment of rent, disproved his tenancy. The Supreme Court, relying on its prior precedent, held that entries in the cultivation column of a Jamabandi raise a presumption of tenancy that cannot be overridden by uncorroborated entries in the Lagan column. The party asserting the correctness of the Lagan column bears the burden of producing independent evidence to support it. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the respondent to adduce corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an entry in the cultivation column of a Jamabandi takes precedence over a conflicting entry in the Lagan column in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Which party bears the burden of proof when relying on an entry in the Lagan column that contradicts the cultivation column of a Jamabandi?
  • Does the mere non-payment of rent as recorded in the Lagan column divest an individual of their status as a tenant if they are explicitly recorded as such in the cultivation column?
  Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad And Others vs Sher Aman And Other1986 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07
  leave to appealadverse possessionrevenue recordtenancy-at-willsuit for possessionproduce rent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which partially accepted a civil revision and dismissed their suit for possession regarding Khasra No. 5710. The underlying dispute arose from a revenue court suit for produce rent, subsequent dismissal by the Collector based on entries of possession as Bila Lagan Badal Kham, and the subsequent civil litigation for possession. The core legal question concerned the effect of non-payment of rent and entries in revenue records regarding adverse possession and hostile title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition involves a question requiring consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, allowing security of rupees two thousand five hundred and granting liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that the mere non-payment of rent and entries of Bila Lagan Badal Kham in revenue records require examination by the court to determine whether possession constitutes adverse possession or hostile title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere non-payment of rent make a tenant's possession adverse to the owner?
  • What is the legal effect of revenue entries stating Bila Lagan Badal Kham on a claim of adverse possession?
  • Who bears the heavy onus of proving title by adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Sooharo vs Ramzan1986 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11
  evictiondefault in rentstatutory tenantnotice requirementtenancy agreementDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an eviction order against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a tenant, was entitled to receive a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, despite having entered into a specific tenancy agreement with the respondent on 9-10-1966. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction due to default in rent payments, a decision reversed by the Additional District Judge on the grounds of lack of notice, but subsequently restored by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly determined that the petitioner, having acquired tenancy rights through a private agreement, was not entitled to the statutory notice under Section 30 of the Act. The Court affirmed the findings of fact regarding the execution of the agreement and the default in rent payment, concluding that the eviction order was legally sound and dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant who acquires tenancy rights through a private agreement entitled to notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does the failure to pay rent for the period in question justify an eviction order against a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Kh. Muhammad Rashid Vine1986 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29
  urban rent restrictionevictionvacant possessionappealundertakingconsent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' Second Appeal from Order arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. When the matter was called out, counsel for the appellants ultimately did not press the appeal on merits, instead requesting a period of two months to vacate the premises, coupled with an undertaking to deliver vacant possession to the respondent-landlord by a specified date and to pay advance rent for the intervening period. The counsel for the respondent-landlord consented to this arrangement upon the stated conditions. The Supreme Court accordingly granted the appellants two months' time to vacate the premises and surrender possession in accordance with their undertaking. The core legal question concerned the execution of the eviction order and the accommodation of the tenant's request for time to vacate based on mutual agreement. The court held that the time extension be granted subject to the strict fulfillment of the undertakings given by the appellants. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of rent matters in terms of lawful undertakings and mutual concessions agreed upon by the contesting parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can grant time to vacate premises based on an undertaking given by the tenant?
  • Can an appeal under the rent laws be disposed of in terms of a mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant regarding vacation time?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Manzoor Hussain vs The Multan Improvement Trust, Multan And Other1986 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-24
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisitionadditional compensationjurisdiction of senior civil judgeimprovement trustreference to courtexisting law protection
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a Tribunal or the Senior Civil Judge had exclusive jurisdiction over a land acquisition reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and whether landowners were legally entitled to fifteen per cent additional compensation for compulsory acquisition. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an established and functioning Tribunal, section 66(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 operates to vest jurisdiction in the Court, rendering the Senior Civil Judge's adjudication competent. On the second question, the Court clarified that paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as originally framed, enjoys constitutional protection under section 299(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935 as an existing law, unlike subsequent amendments such as Punjab Act II of 1953 which were struck down. Consequently, the statutory denial of the fifteen per cent compulsory acquisition allowance for land acquired under the original Act is valid and enforceable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Senior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to dispose of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the absence of an established Tribunal under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922?
  • Does paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 validly exclude the application of fifteen per cent additional compensation for compulsory acquisition?
  • Is paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 protected as an existing law under section 299(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935?
  • Whether subsequent legislative amendments affecting compulsory acquisition compensation without conforming to section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 are ultra vires?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Manzoor Ahmad vs Ali Ahmad And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-27
  ejectmentbona fide needlandlord and tenantrent controllerconstitutional petitionconcurrent findings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the landlord's claim for personal bona fide need of a shop for his son, who was deaf and dumb and trained as a tailor, was genuine, particularly in light of allegations that the landlord possessed another shop that was let out subsequent to the filing of the ejectment application. The petitioner argued that an admission made by the landlord's attorney during proceedings indicated the lack of bona fide need and suggested the eviction was merely a pretext for rent enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment of the attorney's statement as equivocal was plausible. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, affirming that such findings are not subject to reappraisal in constitutional jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an equivocal admission by an attorney regarding a landlord's property possession necessarily negate the bona fide need for ejectment?
  • Is the possession of another shop by a landlord, which was let out after the filing of an ejectment application, sufficient to disprove the bona fide need for the premises in dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ihsanul Haq Piracha vs MR. Wasim Sajjad and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-14
  Senate electionTechnocrat qualificationElection petitionProfessional competenceNational recognitionInternational recognitionHigh level experienceStatutory interpretationEstoppelNomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns two appeals under Section 48(3) of the Senate Election Act, 1975, challenging an Election Tribunal's decision that the appellants were not "technocrats" as defined in Article 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977, and thus unqualified for special Senate seats. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of "technocrat," the meaning of "nationally or internationally recognized professional competence," and the scope of "high level" experience. The Supreme Court held that "profession" is vague and flexible, emphasizing practical experience over academic qualification for a technocrat. It ruled that national or international recognition of professional competence is not limited to formal acts but can also be indirect, such as association in national policy-making or representation in international bodies. The Court found that both appellants satisfied the criteria, accepting their appeals and setting aside the Election Tribunal's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a "technocrat" for the purpose of election to special Senate seats?
  • How should "nationally or internationally recognized professional competence" be interpreted in the context of a technocrat's qualification?
  • Can indirect forms of recognition, such as participation in national policy-making or international representation, satisfy the requirement of national or international recognition for a technocrat?
  • What is the meaning of "high level" experience and expertise for administering or managing an operational or policy-making unit?
  • Does the failure to object to a candidate's qualification before the Returning Officer estop an aggrieved party from filing an election petition on the same grounds?
  • Is a technocrat required to possess academic qualifications, or is practical experience and expertise sufficient?
  • Can an election petition be dismissed solely because the petitioner did not lead affirmative oral evidence, when relying on the respondent's nomination papers and biodata?
  • Does the use of the word "professional" as an adjective in the definition of "technocrat" imply that a technocrat must also satisfy the full definition of a "professional"?
  • Can the qualifications prescribed in the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an Election Tribunal?
  • Is the announcement of election results through notification in the Gazette a prerequisite for filing an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth Wali Muhammad Khan vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1986 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-16
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertyleave to appealstatus quoejectment application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of evacuee property to the petitioner, Saith Wali Muhammad Khan, and the identification of properties belonging to particular evacuee owners. The core legal question involves determining whether properties of different evacuee owners could be merged or if the unit of property must be fixed with reference to its own independent owner under the applicable law. The Court granted leave to consider the proper identification and segregation of the evacuee properties based on their original ownership. Furthermore, the Court ordered that an existing status quo granted on 5-8-1981 shall continue subject to the regular deposit of rent, failing which the petitioner would be liable to eviction, and directed the High Court to proceed with the pending Letters Patent Appeal arising from an ejectment application expeditiously to benefit from its views.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unit of property in evacuee property transfer cases is to be fixed with reference to its own independent owners rather than being merged with properties belonging to different owners?
  • Can a status quo order be made conditional upon the regular deposit of rent by the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Seed Shah Muhammad vs The State1986 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03
  appreciation of evidencerecovery of armspolice testimonyindependent witnessesleave to appealcriminal procedureillegal possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for illegal possession of a revolver. The petitioner was arrested by police officers while standing outside his house; he contends the recovery was fabricated after he demanded a search warrant for his residence. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of sole police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses and the procedural requirements for search and seizure. The petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses, rendering the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the potential for police fabrication, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the case merits a re-examination to determine whether the established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were correctly applied by the lower courts, particularly concerning the reliance on exclusively police witnesses in a recovery case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for illegal possession of arms be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers when independent witnesses were available but not associated?
  • Does the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses vitiate a recovery?
  • Is a personal search by police justified without suspicious conduct or behavior by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Government of Sind Education Department And Another S1986 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23
  civil servantpromotionseniorityservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionvested rightbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil appeals regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters and the competency of an appeal before the Service Tribunal concerning promotion. The core legal questions relate to whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion, whether an appeal lies to the Service Tribunal against an order refusing promotion, and whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction to remand a matter involving terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant has no vested right to promotion, that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order promotion due to the statutory bar in the Sind Service Tribunals Act, and that the High Court lacks constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 to interfere with service matters or remand such cases. The key principles laid down are that seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion as fitness is determined by the competent authority, outside forums cannot review promotion fitness, service appeals seeking promotion are incompetent, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Service Tribunal against an order refusing promotion to a civil servant?
  • Is the High Court competent to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants falling within the ambit of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a party be permitted to alter the nature of its case by raising a new plea of seniority when the original appeal before the Service Tribunal was exclusively for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah vs Additional Settlement Commissioner_Colonization Officer, Thal Project, District Sahiwal and Other1986 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-26
  evacuee propertyThal Development Authorityland acquisitionregrantdisplaced persons allotmentcompensation pool
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated civil appeals arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning competing claims of land regrant and refugee allotments within the Thal Project area. The core legal question revolves around whether specific parcels of land—namely Khewats Nos. 58 and 67—retained their character as evacuee property or were validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority under the Punjab Thal Development Act, 1949, thereby removing them from the rehabilitation pool. The Supreme Court held that land exclusively owned by non-Muslims and sanctioned by the Central Government was validly acquired and ceased to be evacuee property, whereas land held jointly by Muslims and non-Muslims remained unacquired evacuee property subject to the jurisdiction of rehabilitation authorities. The Court laid down the principle that the prior statutory sanction for acquisition by the Central Government under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, prevails over subsequent administrative withdrawals by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and that property validly acquired by a development authority cannot be lawfully allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land jointly owned by Muslims and non-Muslims within the Thal Project area constituted validly acquired property or remained unacquired evacuee property?
  • Does the withdrawal of sanction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 affect a prior acquisition sanction granted by the Central Government?
  • Whether property acquired by the Thal Development Authority with the approval of the Central Government remains subject to allotment under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Arif Shah vs Abdul Hakim Qureshi1986 PLD Supreme Court 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-18
  specific performanceliquidation of damagesearnest moneydiscretionary reliefrevisional jurisdictioncoercion and undue influence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, where the trial court declined specific performance but awarded the return of earnest money and stipulated damages, which decision was upheld in revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, specifically whether the mere specification of a sum to be paid in case of breach bars specific performance, and whether the courts below properly exercised their discretion. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was contrary to law, whether the High Court misconstrued the grounds of the trial court's decision regarding coercion and undue influence, and whether the High Court erred in declining to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that leave should be granted to examine these contentions regarding the proper exercise of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the naming of a sum to be paid in case of a contract's breach bar the court from granting specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Whether the discretion exercised by the trial court in refusing a decree for specific performance was contrary to law?
  • Can a High Court refuse to interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the trial court's order could only have been challenged via appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Zia vs Bagh Din1986 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-05
  leave to appealclosure of evidenceadmission by predecessorprivy in estateOrder XVII Rule 3concurrent findingssuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession of a portion of property comprising a room and verandah, which was decreed against the petitioner (defendant) by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and High Court in revision. The core legal questions pertained to whether an admission made by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest in prior litigation bound the petitioner as a privy, and whether the closure of the petitioner's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership were based on a clear admission made by the predecessor-in-interest in a previous written statement and compromise, which fully bound the petitioner as successor-in-interest. The Court further affirmed that the closure of evidence was justified given the repeated failures of the petitioner to process witness fees or produce evidence despite multiple adjournments. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an admission regarding property ownership made by a predecessor-in-interest in earlier litigation is binding on their successor-in-interest?
  • Whether a court is justified in closing a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the party repeatedly fails to pay process fees or produce witnesses despite multiple adjournments?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs Federation of Pakistan1986 SCMR 1950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-27
  service recorddate of birth correctionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsgross irregularitycivil court jurisdictiondeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit filed by a government employee seeking a declaration to correct his date of birth in service records, thereby extending his service tenure. While the trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit in the appellant's favor, the High Court reversed this decision in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact and whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts committed a gross irregularity by completely ignoring vital documentary evidence—specifically, the appellant's own signed declarations confirming his original date of birth. The Court affirmed that such disregard for material evidence justifies interference in revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that the civil court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the relief of extending the appellant's service tenure. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to set aside the lower courts' judgments was deemed unexceptionable, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if lower courts ignored material evidence?
  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to grant a decree extending an employee's service tenure?
  • Does the failure of lower courts to consider contradictory documentary evidence constitute a gross irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs Ghulam Qadir And Other1986 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04
  leave to appeallimitationrejection of plaintcivil revisionland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision petition concerning a land suit. The petitioner had filed a suit in 1979 challenging a 1957 registered sale-deed of land gifted to him by his father in 1952, claiming the sale was illegal and void. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and suffered from deficient court-fee. The first appellate court maintained the dismissal on limitation, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision. The core legal question involved the determination of limitation and whether the petitioner had requisite knowledge of the alienation to save the suit from being time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the sale following the purchasers taking possession of the suit-land, rendering the suit hopelessly time-barred even from the date he attained majority. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit challenging a registered sale-deed is barred by limitation when filed decades after the sale and long after attaining majority?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit is time-barred?
  • Does taking possession of the disputed land by purchasers constitute constructive knowledge of the sale for the purpose of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Barkat Ali1986 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18
  civil court jurisdictionexclusive jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesSettlement Scheme No. VIIproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII by the Tehsildar exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit to contest the transfer order, which was initially decreed by the Civil Court. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction in such matters, a view subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the concurrent findings and the core legal question regarding the ouster of civil court jurisdiction over matters exclusively assigned to settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in disputes of this nature, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain matters falling within the exclusive domain of settlement authorities under the applicable settlement schemes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order of transfer of property passed by a settlement authority under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  • Do Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Akhtari Begum And Other1986 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-17
  temporary injunctioninterlocutory orderleave to appealcivil revisionMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a temporary injunction previously granted in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to vacate the temporary injunction was legally sustainable in light of established precedents and relevant statutory provisions. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the High Court's impugned order was consistent with the principles laid down in Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1971 SC 791) and the provisions of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975. The Court further clarified that the observations made by the High Court regarding the interlocutory matter were tentative in nature and would not prejudice the final determination of the case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order vacating a temporary injunction in an interlocutory matter prejudice the final determination of the case?
  • Is the High Court's decision to set aside a temporary injunction consistent with the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Umar Khan vs Raja Gul Zaman1986 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29
  permanent injunctionpossessionchain of titleevacuee propertypermanent transfer documentcivil revisiondemarcation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for permanent injunction and possession regarding a plot of land, Khasra No. 9205/4089, in Rawalpindi. The respondent claimed exclusive ownership based on a chain of title originating from a permanent transfer document (P.T.D.) issued by the Central Government after partition, followed by subsequent registered sale deeds. The petitioner, owning the adjoining property, contested the respondent’s title, alleging misreading of evidence and the improper rejection of an application for a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property boundaries. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in revision. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting the established chain of title starting from the P.T.D. and supported by mutation records and registered deeds. Finding no merit in the contention that evidence was misread or that the refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner constituted a legal error, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding ownership based on registered title documents warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation a mandatory requirement when the chain of title is otherwise established by documentary evidence?
  • Can a revision petition be dismissed in limine if the findings of the trial and appellate courts are supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Aslam vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1986 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08
  settlement proceedingsdisplaced personsdivisibility of houseappurtenant propertyconcurrent findingswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal relates to the dispute over the transfer of two plots with structures situated in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the structures on Plots Nos. 75 and 76 constituted a single indivisible house or two separate residential units, and whether out-houses/servant quarters were appurtenant to the main house. The Supreme Court held that since the structures were built on distinct plots meant for separate buildings, they were not appurtenant to each other, and the Settlement Commissioners were fully competent to treat them as separate houses. The Court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by specialized tribunals regarding the divisibility of properties should not be lightly interfered with by the High Court in writ jurisdiction unless legally unjustified. The appeal was accordingly allowed, restoring the transfer of Plot No. 76 to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether servant quarters built on a separate plot can be considered appurtenant to a main house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Can the High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Settlement Commissioners regarding the divisibility of properties?
  • Whether out-houses and garages situated on distinct plots constitute separate residential units?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Riaz Ahmad And Other1986 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20
  EjectmentPersonal requirementLandlord and tenantConstitutional jurisdictionFindings of factChoice of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlord (respondent) against a tenant (petitioner) on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller granted the ejectment, but the Additional District Judge allowed the petitioner's appeal, dismissing the application, based on the assumption that the landlord already had sufficient business premises as a shareholder with his father-in-law. The High Court, in a Constitutional Petition, reversed the Additional District Judge's order, finding an error of law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The Court reiterated that the choice in selecting premises for personal requirement lies with the landlord, and the mere fact that the landlord has another shop with a tenant is irrelevant. Furthermore, a shop belonging to the landlord's father-in-law, even if the landlord conducts business there, is not considered the landlord's own for the purpose of assessing personal requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can findings of fact in a rent case be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction if they are based on a wrong assumption of law?
  • Does the landlord's choice in selecting premises for personal requirement matter if they have another shop with a tenant?
  • Is a shop where a landlord carries on business in partnership with his father-in-law considered his own for the purpose of personal requirement?
  • Can a High Court correct an error of law made by an Additional District Judge in a rent case through constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Khurshid Ahmad And Another1986 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16
  acquittalretrialbenefit of doubtcriminal revisionleave to appealinordinate delaymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that set aside an acquittal and directed a retrial in a murder case. The petitioner was originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21-9-1971, based on the benefit of doubt. Subsequently, the complainant filed a revision petition, which remained pending for approximately 14 years before the High Court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial in 1985. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that a retrial was unwarranted given the circumstances and the inordinate delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that a reappraisal of the evidence was necessary to resolve the matter. Consequently, the Court stayed further proceedings in the case pending the final decision of the appeal. The judgment underscores the necessity of judicial scrutiny when High Courts order retrials after significant delays following an initial acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retrial warranted when a High Court sets aside an acquittal after an inordinate delay of 14 years?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against a High Court order directing a retrial in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan And Others vs Said And Other1986 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29
  civil reviewsupreme courtaccidental mistakeleave to appealreview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from a prayer to review an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. The core legal question concerns whether an order dismissing a petition was passed due to a clerical or accidental mistake, incorrectly reflecting facts of another case when leave was actually granted and security deposited. The court held that there was force in the submissions that the impugned order was mistakenly attached to the file due to an error. The review petition was accordingly allowed, the dismissal order set aside, and the main petition directed to be fixed for hearing along with tracing the original order granting leave.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil petition dismissed due to an accidental mistake or wrong attachment of an order can be reviewed?
  • Can a court set aside an erroneous order passed on a petition and restore the matter for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bahadur vs The State1986 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13
  post-arrest bailleave to appealmurder casediscretionary powerappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the impugned judgment of the High Court and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had delivered a detailed and well-reasoned judgment regarding the bail application. Upon examination, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law that would necessitate interference or further adjudication by the Supreme Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's bail order where the lower court has exercised its discretion through a reasoned and detailed judgment and no significant legal error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's bail order when the High Court has provided a detailed and well-reasoned judgment?
  • Is leave to appeal granted in a bail matter where no substantial question of law is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Gul vs Central Government and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-11
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodacknowledgment of liabilityevacuee propertyequity of redemptionrevenue mutationcompensation pool
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the redemption of a mortgage on agricultural land that became evacuee property. The appellant, holding the equity of redemption, challenged revenue mutations that declared the Central Government the full owner of the land, arguing his right to redeem had not expired. The core legal questions were whether the suit for redemption was time-barred under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether specific revenue records acknowledging the appellant's status as mortgagor constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, thereby extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the mutation entry dated 11th January 1969, which recognized the appellant as the mortgagor, constituted a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, effectively resetting the limitation period. The Court established that substance prevails over form in pleadings and that revenue records acknowledging a mortgagor's rights can serve as an acknowledgment of liability, preventing the extinguishment of redemption rights under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation entry acknowledging a mortgagor's rights constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the acquisition of evacuee property by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 extinguish the pre-existing rights of a non-evacuee mortgagor?
  • Can a court grant relief for redemption of a mortgage even if the suit is framed as a declaratory suit, provided the substance of the claim is for redemption?
  • Does the expiry of the limitation period for a redemption suit under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908 automatically extinguish the mortgagor's title under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 if an acknowledgment of liability has occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Samandar Khan vs Mst. Sitara Bibi And Other1986 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14
  leasehold rightsrevisional jurisdictioncancellation of leaseprior leaseKarachi Municipal Corporationproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the leasehold rights of a property owned by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, Samandar Khan, obtained a lease for a property already leased to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Muhammad Yousuf, by allegedly misrepresenting facts. The core legal question was whether a subsequent lease granted by the municipal authority for a property already under a valid, subsisting lease to another party is legally sustainable without the cancellation of the prior lease. The trial court decreed in favor of the original lessee, a decision initially reversed by the appellate court but restored by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a subsequent lease cannot be validly granted over a property while a prior lease remains in existence and has not been cancelled through proper legal procedure. The principle established is that the existence of a prior, valid lease precludes the grant of a subsequent lease for the same property by the municipal authority, regardless of the subsequent lessee's physical possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a municipal authority grant a lease for a property that is already subject to a valid, subsisting lease in favor of another party?
  • Is the cancellation of a prior lease a necessary legal prerequisite before a municipal authority can grant a new lease for the same property to a different person?
  • Does the physical possession of a property by a third party entitle them to a lease from the municipal authority if a prior lease for the same property already exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Salehon And Others vs Mst. Anwari And Other1986 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04
  rehabilitation settlementproduce index unitsinheritance mutationallotment of landco-sharersdeceased right-holderbona fide purchasers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examines whether the entitlement of a vendor in a rehabilitation settlement was correctly fixed to protect the purchasers' interest in the land. The core legal question concerned whether an allottee female heir held an exclusive allotment of the disputed land or shared it with her sisters, and how subsequent claims by collaterals affected the property. The Supreme Court held that the confirmation of land was made in the name of the deceased right-holder, and all daughters were legitimate co-sharers under the relevant rehabilitation scheme without any exclusive allotment to the vendor. The Court established that successors to a deceased right-holder under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme can only receive land to the extent of their respective inheritance shares, and failure to produce primary verification documents like form RL-II to substantiate independent allotments elsewhere defeats claims of exclusive ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether successors of a deceased right-holder are entitled to receive land beyond their respective shares in inheritance under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Can jamabandi entries substitute for basic confirmation documents like form RL-II to establish separate exclusive land allotments?
  • Are rehabilitation authorities legally bound to reflect co-sharers according to verified inheritance shares upon the appearance of rightful collaterals?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleheen vs Muhammad Bashir And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-28
  cancellation of bailZina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancejudicial discretionbailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to two respondents, Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, who were charged with offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner contended that the accused were charged with offences punishable by imprisonment for ten years and that the High Court erred by granting bail solely because the police no longer required the accused's presence, without explicitly recording its satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were not guilty. Upon examination of the facts, the Supreme Court noted evidence indicating that Mst. Ghulam Sakina had been divorced by her husband and that Muhammad Bashir was unaware of her marital status. The Court held that the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition, affirming that the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters remains sound when based on the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail solely on the ground that the police no longer require the accused's presence satisfy the legal requirements for bail in offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail when evidence suggests the accused may not be guilty of the charged offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ur Rehman And Others vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, S&Gad, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26
  Government servantRelaxation of Upper Age Limit RulesPunjab Civil Servants Actstatutory interpretationage relaxationFederal versus Provincial employeesCivil Service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examines whether the expression "Government servant" under clause (v) of rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 bears a generic, extended meaning encompassing both Federal and Provincial Government employees, or a restricted meaning limited solely to Provincial Government servants. The appellants, federal civil servants employed in the Office of the Accountant-General, Punjab, sought to appear for the Civil Judges examination under the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, claiming upper age limit relaxation. The Supreme Court held that in view of the definition of "Government" under section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the statutory rule of construction under section 19 of the General Clauses Act, coupled with the principle that relaxation or exemption rules must be strictly and narrowly construed rather than extended, the expression "Government servant" in the context refers strictly to servants of the Punjab Government. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellants ineligible for age relaxation as federal employees, while observing that the Provincial Government retains the discretion to relax age requirements if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression "Government servant" in rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 includes Federal Government servants or is restricted to Provincial Government servants?
  • How does the definition of "Government" under section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 affect the interpretation of rules framed thereunder?
  • What is the rule of interpretation applicable to statutory provisions providing for exemptions or relaxations from normal recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem And Another vs Kazi Inayat Ahmad1986 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-30
  legal representativesdeceased respondentabatementlimitation periodSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a matter where leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 9-10-1974. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent died on 31-10-1977. The core legal question addressed by the court is the consequence of the appellants' failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record within the prescribed period of 90 days. Holding that the appeal became improperly constituted and could not proceed due to the long and unexplained delay of over eight years in filing the necessary application for substitution, the court dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an appeal abates or becomes improperly constituted when legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record within the statutory limitation period, and time will not be extended without good grounds.

  Questions settled

  • What is the consequence of failing to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within 90 days?
  • Will the court extend the time to bring legal representatives on record after a delay of several years without good grounds?
  • Does an appeal remain properly constituted when a respondent dies and no substitution is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah and Others vs The State and Another-ReSpOndentS1986 PLD Supreme Court 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11
  private complaintpolice challansupply of documentsmurder trialcriminal revisionpost-mortem reportsite planrecovery memos
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, directed against the dismissal of a criminal revision by the High Court. The petitioners, accused of murder alongside a parallel police case and a private complaint, contended that they were prejudiced by the non-supply of copies of certain documents—namely, recovery memos, the post-mortem report, and the site plan—pursuant to section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the accused in a private complaint were entitled to copies of documents under section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that since the documents in question were already available on the police file and copies thereof had already been supplied to the accused under section 265-C(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grievance regarding non-supply was meritless, and dismissed the appeal without needing to interpret the broader scope of subsection (2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the accused in a private complaint are entitled to copies of documents under section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when those documents are already supplied through the parallel police case file?
  • Does the non-supply of documents already available to the accused on the police record cause prejudice in a trial based on a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Khan And Another vs The State1986 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationchance witnessjudicial confessionsafe administration of justicemurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the convictions of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The trial court and the Peshawar High Court relied on the testimony of a sole eye-witness and the judicial confession of one petitioner to sustain the convictions, rejecting the petitioners' plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court examined whether the eye-witness, whose presence at the scene was unexplained, qualified as a chance witness and whether the High Court correctly evaluated the plea of grave and sudden provocation in light of the unretracted judicial confession. The Court observed that the eye-witness did not observe the infliction of injuries by a sharp-cutting weapon, raising doubts about the consistency of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case warranted a deeper examination of the evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. Leave to appeal was granted to determine if the conviction was sustainable and if the plea of provocation was erroneously rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the scene of the crime is unexplained?
  • Does a judicial confession raising a plea of grave and sudden provocation require corroboration when the prosecution's eye-witness account is contested?
  • Under what circumstances should a court grant leave to appeal against a concurrent finding of guilt in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Amir and Others vs Ashraf Khan and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-08
  adverse possessionjamabandirevenue recordstenant-at-willconcurrent findingscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a civil revision was allowed and the appellants' suit for possession of land was dismissed based on the respondents' maturity of title through adverse possession. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly interpreted revenue entries in the Jamabandi, specifically giving preference to the Lagan column over the cultivation and ownership columns, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession could be lawfully upset in revision. The Supreme Court held that entries in the cultivation and ownership columns of the Jamabandi cannot be overridden by isolated entries in the Lagan column, and that a tenant recorded as such cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that non-payment of rent does not alter the character of a tenant, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be lightly disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether entries in the Lagan column of a Jamabandi take precedence over entries in the cultivation and ownership columns?
  • Can a tenant recorded as a tenant-at-will claim adverse possession against the true owner?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the question of adverse possession can be upset in a civil revision?
  • Does the non-payment of rent change the character of a person recorded as a tenant in the cultivation column?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Baig vs Muhammad Arshad Alias Achhu And Another1986 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-30
  suspension of sentencecommon intentionbail pending appealleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that suspended the conviction and sentence of a respondent convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court granted bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred by focusing exclusively on the respondent's individual act of firing a firearm, while failing to consider the trial court's finding regarding the respondent's shared common intention with others in committing the offence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's failure to account for the established common intention necessitated further judicial examination. The Court held that the scope and application of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the suspension of sentences in cases involving common intention require a more authoritative pronouncement, warranting a full hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court suspend a conviction and sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without considering the established common intention of the accused?
  • Does the scope of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require consideration of the entire evidentiary context, including common intention, when suspending a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah Khan vs The State1986 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ocular testimonymedical evidencecontradictionmurderattempted murdercriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and the attempted murder of the complainant. The appellant challenged the conviction, primarily arguing that contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the fatal gunshot wound rendered the prosecution's case unreliable, suggesting the crime was un-witnessed. The Supreme Court held that while discrepancies existed between the FIR and the trial testimony regarding the direction of the shot, such inconsistencies were attributable to the confusion and traumatic circumstances of the event. The Court affirmed that the presence of the eye-witnesses was corroborated by the fact that one witness was himself injured during the incident. Furthermore, the Court held that the medical evidence regarding the stomach contents of the deceased was consistent with the time of occurrence. The Court reiterated the principle that minor contradictions in testimony under stress do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case and that proof of motive, while present, is not strictly incumbent upon the prosecution to secure a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the direction of a gunshot wound automatically render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is it incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a motive for the commission of a crime?
  • Can the testimony of an eye-witness be accepted despite inconsistencies arising from the confusion and trauma of the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Hamdani vs Muhammad Iroan and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-02
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionmurderacquittalbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a petition for leave to appeal by the complainant, examined the correctness of the Lahore High Court's judgment dated November 6, 1979, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an eight-year-old boy. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial confessions, last-seen evidence, and recoveries. The Supreme Court evaluated the reliability of the extra-judicial confessions, noting significant discrepancies in timings, the absence of prior acquaintance between the accused and the witnesses, and the fact that one confession was made in the immediate presence of police officers in a crowded bazaar. The Court also found critical flaws and unexplained delays concerning the recoveries of items from a locked store-room, and noted that the last-seen evidence was too tenuous to establish guilt. Upholding the High Court's acquittal, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and established beyond reasonable doubt to exclude any hypothesis of innocence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to complete strangers without prior acquaintance is reliable for sustaining a murder conviction?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession made in the immediate presence of police officers in a public place be considered voluntary and admissible?
  • What standard of proof is required in criminal cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction?
  • Whether material discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the time of an alleged extra-judicial confession vitiate its credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Sayeed Khan And Another vs Central Government Through Defence Secretary And Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad And Other1986 SCMR 1147(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15
  civil executionstay of executiondisputed amountbank guaranteesupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the execution of a decree involving a disputed amount of Rs.10,00,000. The core legal question relates to the conditions under which execution proceedings should be stayed or suspended pending further resolution. The court held that the appeal is allowed subject to specific terms regarding the deposit of the disputed amount. The key principle laid down is that execution proceedings may be suspended upon the judgment-debtor depositing the disputed decretal amount in the executing court within a stipulated timeframe, while permitting the decree-holder to withdraw the deposited funds upon furnishing a sufficient bank guarantee, thereby balancing the interests of both parties during the pendency of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Under what conditions may the execution of a decree be suspended when a disputed amount is involved?
  • Can a decree-holder withdraw a deposited disputed amount from the executing court, and if so, upon what condition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain And Others vs Ghulam Rasool1986 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04
  limitationpleadingsdefamationmalicious litigationappellate practiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that refused to entertain a plea of limitation raised by the petitioners. The petitioners had initially filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed by the trial court upon finding that the respondent was the legitimate heir of the deceased and that the suit was filed maliciously to defame him. Consequently, the respondent successfully sued for damages for defamation. In the subsequent proceedings, the petitioners failed to challenge the findings on the merits but attempted to raise the issue of limitation for the first time before the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a plea of limitation cannot be raised for the first time at a belated stage if it was not pleaded in the written statement or agitated during the earlier proceedings. The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to consider the point, as the petitioners were precluded from introducing new legal arguments that were not part of the original pleadings or trial record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the High Court if it was not pleaded in the written statement or raised during the trial proceedings?
  • Is a party entitled to introduce a new legal argument at the appellate stage that was not part of the original pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• S.A. Rizvi vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission And Another1986 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-15
  Service Tribunalpower of reviewrehearingfunctus officiosubstantive rightcivil court powersjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of two civil appeals arising from decisions of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, and the Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi. The core legal question addressed was whether Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (and the corresponding provincial provision under the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973) confers upon the Service Tribunals the power to review or rehear their own final decisions. The Supreme Court held that the legal fiction deeming the Tribunal to be a civil court under Section 5(2) is expressly limited to powers exercised 'for the purpose of deciding an appeal' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (such as Order XLI). The Court laid down that the power of review is a substantive right created purely by statute, not a mere procedural rule, and cannot be implied or assumed without explicit statutory authorization. Consequently, both appeals seeking review or de novo rehearing were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer a power of review on the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a power of review be implied as a matter of procedure without an express statutory grant?
  • Does the legal fiction deeming a statutory tribunal to be a civil court for the purpose of deciding an appeal automatically grant it review powers under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• S. M, Abid vs Mst. Zahida Yousaf1986 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11
  interim reliefcompromise agreementejectmentfraud and misrepresentationprima facie casetenancy disputecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by a tenant seeking to challenge a compromise agreement regarding the vacation of rented premises. The tenant, having previously agreed to vacate the property by a specific date in exchange for rent adjustments, subsequently filed a suit alleging that the landlord's claim of personal need—which induced the compromise—was fraudulent and based on misrepresentation. The tenant sought interim relief to stay the ejectment order. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused the interim relief, and the High Court declined to interfere in revision. The Supreme Court held that because the tenant had originally contested the landlord's claim of personal need before entering into the compromise, he could not now claim to have been deceived by that same assertion. The Court determined that the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, as he was attempting to resurrect previously settled disputes. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party cannot repudiate a compromise based on alleged misrepresentation when they were fully aware of the facts at the time of the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party to a compromise agreement challenge it on the grounds of fraud if they were aware of the disputed facts at the time of the agreement?
  • Is a tenant entitled to interim relief to stay an ejectment order after voluntarily entering into a compromise to vacate the premises?
  • Does a denial of a landlord's claim of personal need in initial proceedings preclude a later claim of fraud based on that same personal need after a compromise is reached?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Jamil Ahmed Hashmi vs Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad And Other1986 SCMR 1671 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-15
  service appealremoval from servicepetition for leave to appealdisciplinary proceedingscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 27-2-1984, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his removal from service. The core legal question concerns the legality and factual justification of the petitioner's removal from service and whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the same. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken in law or on facts against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, as the petitioner was duly proved guilty of the charges framed against him. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the guilt of a civil servant in disciplinary matters, when supported by the record, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding charges against a civil servant?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding removal from service when charges are proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan And Others vs The State1986 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15
  leave to appealforgeryfinger-print expertright of cross-examinationre-appraisal of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld their conviction under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly forging and registering a sale-deed. The trial court had convicted the petitioners, while acquitting their co-accused, and the Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed their subsequent appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained when it was mainly based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined during the trial, thereby depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Supreme Court held that a re-appraisal of the evidence was necessary under these circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the conviction based on an unexamined expert's report.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be lawfully based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined by the trial court?
  • Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a finger-print expert warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Does the re-appraisal of evidence become necessary when crucial expert reports are relied upon without formal examination of the expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-26
  leave to appeallocus standievacuee propertyland acquisitionregistered sale-deeddevelopment scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute relates to a parcel of land measuring 406 Kanals and 1 Marla originally purchased by the petitioner-society via a registered sale-deed in 1964 from the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Lahore Improvement Trust (predecessor of the Lahore Development Authority) had previously formulated a development scheme and claimed the land, leading to prolonged litigation. Although the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings upheld the development scheme and cancelled the petitioner's sale-deed regarding certain lands, it transpired that the disputed 406 Kanals and 1 Marla were not actually covered by the said development scheme. Consequently, subsequent acquisition notifications issued by the Lahore Development Authority for this area led to a writ petition by the petitioner-society, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the society lacked locus standi because its sale-deed had been invalidated. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that since the disputed land was never part of the original development scheme, the petitioner's title remained intact, granting it the requisite locus standi to challenge subsequent acquisition proceedings. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted, and the High Court was requested to expedite pending related writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a property owner retain locus standi to challenge subsequent land acquisition proceedings when their title was mistakenly assumed to have been invalidated by an earlier court judgment?
  • Whether land not covered under a validly sanctioned development scheme remains vested in the original purchaser despite prior litigation concerning other tracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Riceexport Corporation of Pakistan Through Its Secretary vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And Other1986 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-12
  industrial undertakingWorkers' Participation Fundrice exportmanufacturing processstatutory interpretationlabor dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a company incorporated for exporting rice, challenged the orders of the labor tribunals and the High Court holding it liable to establish a Workers' Participation Fund under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968. The core legal question was whether the appellant constituted an 'industrial undertaking' under the Scheme set out in the schedule to the Act. The Supreme Court held that the mechanical processes of cleaning, grading, purifying, and refining raw rice—which removed impurities, husk, and broken grains using electrical machinery—changed the original condition of the commodity and enhanced its value, thereby qualifying the enterprise as an industrial undertaking. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that processing raw agricultural goods through mechanical means to render them export-fit by adding worth and changing their condition satisfies the statutory definition of an industrial undertaking.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a corporation engaged in the procurement, cleaning, and export of rice qualifies as an industrial undertaking under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968?
  • Does the mechanical processing, cleaning, and grading of raw rice change its original condition or add to its value within the meaning of the industrial undertaking scheme?
  • Are companies meeting the asset and worker thresholds of the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 required to establish a workers' participation fund?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Qadeer Khan Lodhi vs Secretary, Population Planning Division, Government of Pakistan1986 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24
  contempt of courtcivil servicereinstatementservice appealpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an application under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 seeking contempt proceedings against the Population Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, for alleged non-compliance with the disposal of his Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 501 of 1983. The petitioner claimed he was entitled to be referred to the Public Service Commission and reinstated upon its recommendation. The core legal question was whether the respondent committed contempt of court by refusing to reinstate the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case fell outside the scope of the conditional offer made by the respondent, as employees already rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission were excluded from re-examination and absorption. Consequently, no disobedience of the court's order was established. The key principle laid down is that contempt proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment cannot succeed where the claimant fails to satisfy the specific qualifying conditions and foundational terms of the settlement or offer incorporated in the court's disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Can contempt proceedings be initiated for the non-implementation of a judgment when the claimant does not fulfill the qualifying conditions of the underlying offer?
  • Are employees previously rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission entitled to re-examination and absorption under a conditional reinstatement offer?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain And Others vs The State1986 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-02
  double murdercommon intentioneyewitness testimonyprivate defencesentence enhancementre-investigationrecoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals and petitions arise from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder that occurred on 27-09-1974. The appellants were tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of Baqir Ali and Bakhat Nawaz Malli. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the establishment of motive arising from a broken marriage engagement, the validity of recoveries of weapons and blood-stained clothing, the plea of right of private defence, and the quantum of sentences including the enhancement of a life sentence to death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt lodging of the First Information Report, consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence, and established motive. The Court rejected the plea of private defence as contradictory and deprecated the practice of delayed police re-investigations. Consequently, the convictions and sentences awarded by the High Court were upheld, and all appeals and enhancement petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in describing the weapon of offence in the FIR versus the recovery vitiate the ocular testimony?
  • Can a delayed police re-investigation report contradicting earlier findings form the sole basis for acquitting an accused?
  • Whether the failure to summon certain police officers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 results in a mistrial?
  • Is a plea of private defence sustainable when the statements of the accused persons are contradictory and lack supporting physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain And Others vs Federal Land Commission1986 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-02
  land reformssuo motu revisionadequate considerationconstitutional jurisdictionalienation of landleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a suo motu revisional order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission. The core legal question involved the validity of an alienation of land by a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, which had been set aside by the Commission on the ground that the sale consideration was grossly inadequate compared to the average market price. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to re-examine concurrent findings of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration in its constitutional jurisdiction, and that unargued legal grounds raised in the High Court could not be resurrected. The Court affirmed that questions of fact regarding bona fide transactions are best left to competent authorities, while noting that alienees may protect their lawful interests against the declarant through appropriate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inadequacy of consideration alone can be a ground for the Federal Land Commission to refuse to validate a transaction of sale under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Can questions of fact considered by a competent authority be re-examined by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether legal objections not argued or pressed before the High Court can be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Khalil vs Habib Khan1986 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentstriking off defencenegligence of counselrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in respect of residential premises in Karachi on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and subletting. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent by specified dates. Upon non-compliance, the petitioner's defence was struck off. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the deposit order due to his counsel's negligence and deposited the rent upon discovery. The High Court found the petitioner's counsel guilty of gross negligence which could not excuse the petitioner. The Supreme Court considered the contentions and found no question of law involved, holding that the petitioner is bound by the conduct and negligence of his counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be excused from non-compliance with a rent deposit order due to the negligence of his counsel?
  • Does a petition against the striking off of a defence for non-deposit of rent involve a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1986 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  murderdeath sentenceeye-witness testimonymedical evidencecriminal petitionmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's murder appeal by the High Court, which had confirmed his death sentence for the murder of Siraj Din. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eye-witness testimony, the impact of non-production of certain witnesses, alleged contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, and the justification of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the independent and natural eye-witness corroborated the prosecution's case, that the non-production of related witnesses does not weaken the prosecution where testimony is sufficient, and that minor discrepancies regarding the exact time of death do not outweigh the medical certificate from the hospital. Furthermore, the death sentence was justified given the absence of mitigating circumstances. The key principles laid down relate to the evaluation of ocular testimony supported by independent witnesses and the assessment of mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of certain eye-witnesses adversely affect the prosecution case when other sufficient eye-witness testimony is available?
  • Does a discrepancy between the medical opinion on time of death and ocular evidence vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained when no mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Khan vs Jamil Khan And Another1986 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-14
  murderacquittalocular testimonymotiveabscondenceappraisal of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Jamil Khan, who was previously convicted by the trial court for the murder of Saadullah Khan. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's appraisal of evidence leading to the acquittal, specifically regarding the reliability of ocular testimony, the establishment of motive, and the weight attached to a brief period of abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any material error in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence, noting that the High Court had fully considered the testimony and provided cogent reasons for doubting the prosecution's case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal order based on a plausible and well-reasoned appraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the appraisal of ocular testimony?
  • Does a brief period of abscondence with a plausible explanation suffice to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Whether variances in the statements of eyewitnesses on material points render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah And Others vs Pakistan And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-31
  evacuee trust propertycivil court jurisdictionallotment cancellationleave to appealrehabilitation scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to challenge the cancellation of their land allotment. The petitioners had originally received an allotment of land in 1948, which was later treated as evacuee trust property. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of civil courts over evacuee trust property disputes and the validity of the allotment. The Supreme Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred and that the allotment of trust property was a nullity. The Court clarified that observations made by the lower courts regarding the merits or status of the property only determined the question of jurisdiction and would not operate as a bar to the petitioners seeking relief from designated authorities under Section 10 of Act XIII of 1975 if otherwise entitled. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the cancellation of an allotment of evacuee trust property?
  • Does an allotment of evacuee trust property under a rehabilitation scheme have any legal sanctity?
  • Whether findings on jurisdiction by lower courts operate as a bar to seeking relief from designated statutory authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah And Others vs Mst. Hameeda Begum And Other1986 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23
  evacuee propertypartnership allotmentjoint transferconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefwrit of certiorarisecond revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment in a constitutional petition that set aside an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of an evacuee shop. The shop was originally allotted to a partnership firm. A dispute arose between partners regarding whether the allotment and physical possession pertained to individual partners or to the firm as a whole. The Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire shop to one partner, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner in second revision divided the property among three contesting partners. The High Court declared the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order without jurisdiction due to statutory amendments barring second revisions. The Supreme Court held that allotment to a firm enures to the benefit of all partners in possession on the target date, entitling them to a joint transfer. Furthermore, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to set aside an order, even if passed without jurisdiction, where doing so would revive an unjust or illegal order. The appeal was allowed and a joint transfer was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of evacuee property in the name of a partnership firm enures to the benefit of all partners in possession on the statutory target date for entitlement to transfer?
  • Whether the High Court in exercising its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can refuse to set aside an order passed without jurisdiction if setting it aside would revive an unjust or illegal order?
  • Whether a revisional order modifying an allotment order relates back to and substitutes the original order from the date it was made?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat And Others vs The State And Other1986 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26
  criminal petitionjail petitionenhancement of sentenceconvictiondismissal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises criminal petitions and jail petitions filed against convictions, sentences, and the enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners, as well as the propriety of the sentence enhancement sought by the state or complainants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the counsel for the parties, noted the withdrawal of one petition, and evaluated the remaining petitions and jail petitions on their merits. The court held that no good grounds for interference were made out by the petitioners and that the jail petitions lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all four petitions. The key principle laid down is that where petitions against conviction, sentence, or sentence enhancement fail to disclose valid legal grounds or merits warranting interference, the Supreme Court will uphold the lower forum's determination and dismiss the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal petition against enhancement of sentence is maintainable without establishing valid grounds for interference?
  • Do jail petitions against conviction and sentence warrant interference when found to be without merit?
  • What is the consequence when a petitioner withdraws a criminal petition for enhancement of sentence upon instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State1986 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25
  plea of guiltopium possessionprocedural irregularitysupply of statementsprejudicefailure of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, which were based on his plea of guilt. The petitioner contended that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as he was not supplied with the statements of witnesses nor was a seven-day period allowed to elapse before his charge-sheeting and sentencing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no finding, sentence, or order can be reversed or altered due to a procedural omission or irregularity unless it has occasioned a failure of justice. Since the petitioner had voluntarily pleaded guilty and raised no objection before the trial magistrate, no prejudice or failure of justice was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-supply of copies under Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate a trial where the accused has voluntarily pleaded guilty?
  • How does Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect procedural omissions or irregularities during a criminal trial?
  • Is an accused required to raise an objection regarding procedural violations at the earliest stage of the proceedings to assert a failure of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Hameed Maseeh And Other1986 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03
  bail cancellationsuspension of sentencemurdercriminal petitionappellate discretiontime-barred
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three criminal petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to respondents Hameed Maseeh, Muhammad Iqbal, and Muhammad Afzal, whose sentences of imprisonment for life under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Jameel were suspended pending their appeals. The core legal question is whether the High Court exercised its discretion improperly or arbitrarily in suspending the respondents' sentences and granting them bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the learned Judge in the High Court did not exercise the discretion allowed under the law either illegally or arbitrarily. Additionally, the Court noted that the petition for the cancellation of bail regarding Muhammad Afzal was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that appellate discretion exercised under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of sentence will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be illegal or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court exercised its discretion illegally or arbitrarily in suspending the respondents' sentences?
  • Can a petition for cancellation of bail be dismissed on the ground of being time-barred?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with the suspension of sentence granted by the High Court under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without proof of illegal or arbitrary exercise of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali And Others vs Sardar Khan And Other1986 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15
  pre-emptioncollateralspedigree tableburden of proofsecond appealmisreading of evidencequestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners, claiming to be collaterals of the vendor, sought to pre-empt a sale of land. The trial and appellate courts had ruled in their favor based on a pedigree table. However, the High Court, in second appeal, reversed this decision, holding that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding their relationship with the vendor, as the pedigree table was not sufficiently linked to the parties by positive evidence. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that the High Court had misread the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly considered the evidence and that the issue of the petitioners' relationship with the vendor was a question of fact. Finding no error of law or misappraisal warranting interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that it would not undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence on pure questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal where no question of law is raised?
  • Is a pedigree table sufficient proof of collateral relationship without positive evidence linking the parties to the common ancestor?
  • Does the misreading of evidence by a High Court constitute a sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to re-evaluate factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Razaul Haq vs Muhammad Hanif1986 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-20
  rent evictionleave to appealnon-payment of rentstay of evictionmoney order paymentsRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction for failing to deposit rent in compliance with a previous court order. The petitioner contended that he had consistently paid rent via money order since 1977, which the respondent-landlord accepted until November 1984, and that he was unaware of the Rent Controller's specific order dated 9-12-1984 because his counsel failed to communicate it. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's history of regular payments via money order, even after the ejectment application was filed, and the claim regarding the lack of communication of the Rent Controller's order, presented a substantial question requiring deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction order subject to the condition that the petitioner continues to deposit rent regularly in court, and allowed the parties to file additional documents for the final hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the consistent acceptance of rent via money order by a landlord after the filing of an ejectment application constitute a valid defense against eviction for non-payment?
  • Can an eviction order based on a failure to comply with a court directive be challenged if the tenant claims the order was never communicated to them by counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain vs District Judge, Vehari And Other1986 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-21
  ejectment petitionimpletion of partyrent control proceedingsdetermination of titleleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Raza Hussain sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the lower forum's refusal to implead him as a party in an ejectment petition. The original ejectment petition was filed by Shah Muhammad against Muhammad Akram regarding a shop. The petitioner claimed to be impleaded as a party based on a sale-deed executed in his favour by the brothers of the alleged tenant, asserting ownership and possession. The Rent Controller and District Judge rejected his application on the grounds that he sought to litigate title and that the property numbers differed, and the High Court dismissed his constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a person claiming to be an owner or co-sharer cannot be impleaded as a party in rent control proceedings, which are strictly confined to the landlord and tenant and those deriving interest from them, as such proceedings cannot be converted into a determination of title. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, leaving the petitioner to seek his remedy through appropriate legal steps for title determination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a third party claiming ownership or co-ownership be impleaded as a party in rent control proceedings between a landlord and tenant?
  • Whether rent proceedings can be converted into a suit for determination of title.
  • Does the refusal to implead a person claiming independent title in rent proceedings preclude them from taking appropriate legal steps to establish their title?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashida Khatoon vs Syed Hamid Ali Naqvi1986 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16
  evictiondeceased tenantnullity of orderfraudexecutionlegal representativesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of eviction proceedings initiated against a tenant who died during the pendency of the proceedings, prior to the passing of the eviction order. The core legal question was whether an eviction order passed against a deceased person is a complete nullity in law and unexecutable, and whether the legal representatives can plead nullity when the death was concealed from the court. The Supreme Court held that while ordinarily an order against a dead person is void, the legal representatives and counsel who remained silent about the death and allowed the order to be passed cannot take advantage of their own fraud. The key principle laid down is that a party or its representatives will not be permitted by the court to benefit from their own fraudulent concealment of a party's death during ongoing judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eviction order passed against a dead person is a nullity in law?
  • Can legal representatives take advantage of their own silence regarding the death of a party to claim an order is void?
  • Does concealment of a party's death during judicial proceedings amount to fraud precluding a challenge to the resulting order?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ur Rahman Shami vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1986 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24
  Service TribunalCivil ServantFederal Public Service CommissionMaintainability of AppealLimitationReinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a decision of a Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of maintainability. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having failed to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination, could be considered a civil servant eligible to file an appeal for reinstatement. The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by time and, on merits, concluded that the petitioner's failure to qualify through the Federal Public Service Commission precluded him from claiming the status of a civil servant. Consequently, the petitioner lacked the standing to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it unexceptionable in light of established precedent, specifically Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another (1984 SCMR 759). The key principle laid down is that an individual who has not successfully cleared the requisite Federal Public Service Commission examination cannot claim the status of a civil servant, thereby rendering them ineligible to maintain an appeal before a Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person who fails to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination qualify as a civil servant?
  • Is an appeal maintainable before a Service Tribunal if the appellant has not qualified through the Federal Public Service Commission?
  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on the grounds of both limitation and merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Uddin vs The State1986 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25
  criminal conspiracybank fraudforgeryappreciation of evidencesingle witness testimonypetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Rashid Uddin, along with co-accused, was charged, tried, and convicted under sections 471, 403, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Special Court (Banks) Karachi for entering into a conspiracy to defraud United Bank Limited and fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 6,60,000 using forged cheques. His subsequent appeal before the High Court was dismissed. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his name was omitted from the F.I.R., that the handwriting expert's report was withheld, and that his conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, Muhammad Sadiq. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the testimony of Muhammad Sadiq, who had worked with the petitioner for years and was familiar with his signatures and duties regarding T.T. messages, was lawfully and correctly relied upon by the lower courts. The Court ruled that the appreciation of evidence was proper, the absence of the handwriting expert's report was inconsequential since the defense failed to summon it, and no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for bank fraud and forgery can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness familiar with the accused's signature?
  • Does the omission of an accused person's name from the First Information Report vitiate a subsequent conviction based on trial evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence when an accused fails to summon a handwriting expert's report referred to during trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Tariq Khan vs Additional District Judge, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-09
  family courtreconciliationdowermaintenanceprocedural compliancewrit jurisdictionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging a decree for dower and maintenance. The petitioner contended that the Family Court failed to comply with Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which mandates an attempt at reconciliation between parties upon the conclusion of evidence. The Family Court had explicitly recorded reasons for dispensing with this requirement, citing the futility of such an attempt given the parties' conduct. The High Court affirmed this decision, noting the petitioner's obstructive behavior throughout the proceedings, including the repeated failure to present arguments despite being granted nine opportunities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal error in the lower courts' refusal to mandate reconciliation when the circumstances rendered it impossible. The Court held that where the conduct of parties demonstrates that reconciliation is futile, the procedural requirement under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 does not necessitate a mechanical or redundant exercise, and the court may proceed to judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court is strictly bound to attempt reconciliation under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 even when such an attempt is clearly futile?
  • Can a High Court refuse to issue a writ when the petitioner's conduct demonstrates an abuse of process?
  • Does the failure to hold a reconciliation meeting under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 automatically vitiate a decree for dower and maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan And Another vs The State And Other1986 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01
  bailineffective firingold age bailcriminal petitionleave to appealjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal petitions arise out of an order passed by the Peshawar High Court regarding the bail applications of two accused persons facing trial under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the propriety of granting bail to an accused on medical and age grounds and refusing bail to a co-accused attributed with ineffective firing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its judicial discretion properly without violating any principles of law or committing any illegality. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail jurisdiction by the High Court unless there is a clear illegality or violation of established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ineffective firing by an accused is sufficient ground for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail?
  • Whether advanced age and defective vision constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing bail without a showing of illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Asghar Ali and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-25
  criminal procedureprivate complaintState challanmurder trialprecedence of trialsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a trial court order and directed that a private criminal complaint in a murder case be tried first, followed by the State challan case, in accordance with the precedent in Nur Elahi v. Ch. Ikram-ul-Haq. The core legal question concerned whether the dictum in Nur Elahi's case—requiring the complaint case to be tried first when there are different versions and different sets of accused—applied to the facts of the present case, and whether subsequent Supreme Court judgments had modified that principle. The Supreme Court held that the principle in Nur Elahi's case remains good law and applies where the sets of accused and the prosecution versions differ between the police report and the private complaint. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that where a criminal case involves distinct versions and different arrays of accused persons between the State challan and a private complaint, the precedent in Nur Elahi must govern the precedence of the trials to avoid prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle laid down in Nur Elahi's case regarding the precedence of a private complaint over a State challan has been modified by subsequent judgments?
  • Does the rule in Nur Elahi's case apply when the sets of accused persons and the prosecution versions are different in the police report and the private complaint?
  • Should a private complaint be tried before the State case when both overlap but contain differing allegations against different accused individuals?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Bhatti And Others vs The Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab And Another1986 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-01
  nationalization of schoolspay fixationservice lawretrospective seniorityMartial Law Regulationvested rightseducational service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of former Junior English Teachers to the Senior English Teacher (SET) pay scale retrospectively from the date of nationalization of their schools (1-10-1972). The appellants, previously employed in privately managed schools, sought SET status and pay from the date of nationalization, relying on an administrative order. The core legal question was whether the appellants satisfied the requirements of paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118, which guarantees pay parity for teachers of equivalent qualifications and experience as of 1-10-1972. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish they were holding SET posts or working as such on the crucial date of 1-10-1972. The Court affirmed that the initial administrative order granting them SET status retrospectively was incompetent and temporary, creating no vested rights. The ratio established is that the guarantee under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 is contingent upon the teacher actually holding the equivalent post and possessing the required qualifications on the date of nationalization; subsequent adjustment or promotion does not entitle one to retrospective pay fixation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the guarantee under paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 entitle teachers to Senior English Teacher pay scales from the date of nationalization if they were not holding those posts on that date?
  • Can an administrative order granting retrospective pay fixation create a vested right if the order itself is incompetent and explicitly temporary?
  • Are teachers entitled to the pay scale of a higher post retrospectively based on subsequent adjustment or transfer under the Punjab Nationalized Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Anwar vs Pakistan And Other1986 SCMR 1825(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12
  service lawstatutory interpretationleave to appealservice rulesambiguity in rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding service matters. The core legal question concerns the proper interpretation and reconciliation of Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(7) of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978. The Federal Service Tribunal itself acknowledged ambiguity and a lack of clarity in the application of these specific provisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the Tribunal's attempt to reconcile these conflicting rules requires further judicial examination to ensure correct legal application. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address the interpretation of these rules, directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record. The matter centers on the necessity of resolving statutory ambiguity within service regulations to determine the rights of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • How should Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(7) of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978 be reconciled when they appear ambiguous?
  • Does an ambiguity in the interpretation of service rules warrant the granting of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Muhammad Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1986 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30
  civil service retirementqualifying servicepensionable serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionmala fideCivil Servants Act 1973ouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the petitioner's retirement from civil service under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension, specifically whether prior service in the North Western Railway (NWR) and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) could be aggregated with his federal service to meet this threshold. The petitioner further alleged that the retirement order was mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined that the petitioner's service with the NWR, being paid from General Revenues, qualified for pension purposes, thereby satisfying the 25-year requirement. Consequently, the retirement order was valid. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to examine the retirement order once the 25-year qualifying service threshold was met, noting that allegations of mala fides in such contexts are subject to scrutiny by higher courts rather than the Service Tribunal. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does service rendered in the North Western Railway qualify as service paid from General Revenues for pension purposes?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the validity of a retirement order after a civil servant has completed 25 years of qualifying service?
  • Can a Service Tribunal revise or reverse its own majority judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Zulfiqar vs The State1986 PLD Supreme Court 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-10
  quashment of proceedingsautrefois acquitcriminal breach of trustsubsequent trialleave to appealanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash criminal proceedings under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously been acquitted of criminal breach of trust, but a subsequent departmental audit revealed further alleged financial irregularities leading to fresh charges under section 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner contended that although section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not strictly applicable, the principles underlying it should be attracted as the subsequent offence was similar and relied on the same evidence. The Supreme Court noted this was a case of first impression lacking a prior authoritative ruling from the apex court and granted leave to consider whether the principles of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are attracted to a subsequent trial where the offence is similar in nature and based on the same evidence as a previous trial resulting in acquittal?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of a previous acquittal for a similar offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Aslam vs The District Food Controller, Jhelum And Other1986 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10
  depot authorisationtemporary authorisationvested rightMartial Law Instructiondrawing of lotsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition challenging the decision of the District Allotment Board, which refused to confirm the petitioner's temporary depot authorisation and instead decided to draw lots pursuant to Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The petitioner, having participated in the drawing of lots and remained unsuccessful, challenged the process after failing to secure the allotment. The core legal questions involve whether a temporary or ad hoc authorisation creates a vested right to confirmation, whether changes in policy through Martial Law Instructions can be judicially controlled, and whether a party participating in a selection process can subsequently challenge it upon an unfavorable outcome. The Supreme Court held that no vested right had accrued from a temporary authorisation, that matters of policy change are not subject to court interference, and that an unsuccessful participant cannot challenge the outcome of a process they voluntarily took part in. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary or ad hoc depot authorisation create a vested right for confirmation by the District Allotment Board?
  • Can a change in policy implemented through Martial Law Instructions be interfered with or controlled by the courts?
  • Is an unsuccessful participant who voluntarily took part in the drawing of lots permitted to subsequently challenge the result?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Afzal vs Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain And Other1986 SCMR 1736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-19
  election petitiondisqualification of candidatecorrupt practicesstandard of proofFirst Information Report admissibilitygood character and reputationscrutiny of nomination papersundue influence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from the judgment of the Election Tribunal which declared the appellant's election to the National Assembly void, found him disqualified under Article 10 of the President's (Post Proclamation) Order No. 5 of 1977, held him guilty of corrupt practices, and declared the election petitioner as duly elected. The core legal questions involved the finality of orders passed during the scrutiny of nomination papers, the standard of proof required to establish disqualification and corrupt practices in election petitions, the evidentiary value of First Information Reports (FIRs) and newspaper reports where makers were not produced, and the interpretation of constitutional and statutory qualifications regarding character, reputation, and being an 'Ameen'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the Election Tribunal's judgment and dismissing the election petition. The Court held that summary proceedings at the scrutiny stage do not bar an election petition, that strict proof similar to criminal standards is required to disqualify a candidate or prove corrupt practices, that FIRs and police registers without examination of their makers are inadmissible as substantive evidence of the truth of their contents, and that past acquittals and remote events cannot override positive evidence of good character and reputation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the finality of an order passed during the summary scrutiny of nomination papers bar the trial of an election petition under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish the disqualification of a returned candidate or the commission of corrupt practices in an election petition?
  • Are First Information Reports and entries in police registers admissible as substantive evidence of the truth of their contents when the makers or scribes are not produced as witnesses?
  • Can past criminal cases ending in acquittal or discharge be treated as substantive proof of bad character or lack of qualification to contest an election?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Humayun Khan vs Habib Bank Ltd.1986 SCMR 78(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-14
  Supreme Court RulesRegistrar refusalconstitutional petitioncivil miscellaneous petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil miscellaneous petition filed as an appeal under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules against the Registrar's refusal to entertain a petition. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the Registrar's refusal to entertain a petition filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Registrar rightly refused to entertain the petition as no ground was made out for interference in the order. The key principle laid down is that interference with the Registrar's refusal requires valid grounds establishing error or legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Registrar is justified in refusing to entertain a petition under Article 186-A of the Constitution when no ground for interference is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Raisuddin vs Director of School Education And Other1986 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-18
  departmental inquirycompulsory retirementservice tribunalmartial law authorityauthorized officernatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals against a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal upholding the compulsory retirement of the appellants, who served as Headmasters, following allegations related to illegal appointments. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the departmental inquiry against the appellants violated the provisions of the Sind Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, particularly regarding the dispensing with a regular inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings were fundamentally flawed because the Authorized Officer misconstrued a directive from the Martial Law Authority as a mandatory instruction to impose a penalty rather than an order to proceed in accordance with law, and further failed to record any formal order to dispense with a regular inquiry as required under the rules. The Court laid down the principle that in the absence of a proper recorded order under the relevant rules dispensing with a regular inquiry, an Authorized Officer is not competent to bypass a full-fledged departmental inquiry, rendering subsequent penal action incompetent in law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Authorized Officer can dispense with a regular departmental inquiry without recording a formal order under Rule 5 of the Sind Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Does a directive from a Martial Law Authority to initiate departmental action in accordance with law bind the Authorized Officer to compulsorily impose a penalty without independent appraisal?
  • Are departmental proceedings vitiated if the Authorized Officer misconstrues the nature of instructions received from a superior authority regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bux Soomro vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue And Another1986 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01
  service appealprobationary perioddepartmental examinationtermination of serviceuntil further ordersservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Central Service Tribunal. The petitioner, initially an Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the Income-tax Department, was appointed as an Inspector in 1972. His service was subsequently terminated after he failed to pass the mandatory departmental examination. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that his probationary period had expired, thereby precluding termination on the grounds of failing the examination. The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to extend the probationary period prevented the termination of service. The Court held that since the petitioner's appointment terms stipulated that service was 'until further orders' upon the expiry of the probationary period without extension, the employer retained the authority to terminate the service at any time. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the failure to extend probation did not absolve the petitioner of the requirement to pass the departmental examination, which was a condition of service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it raised no question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to formally extend a probationary period prevent the termination of a government servant's service?
  • Can a government employee's service be terminated for failing a mandatory departmental examination if the probationary period has technically expired?
  • Does the status of 'until further orders' allow for the termination of a government employee at any time?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali And Brothers vs Azmat Ali And Other1986 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-27
  ejectmentbona fide personal needsublettingtenant evictionconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition, which had challenged an ejectment order passed by the first appellate authority. The core legal question concerned whether the landlords established grounds for eviction, specifically bona fide personal need and subletting, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing interference in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority's finding regarding the landlords' bona fide personal requirement was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, and since the specific factual plea regarding the landlords' residence raised before the Supreme Court was not urged during the constitutional petition in the High Court, it could not be entertained. The petition lacked merit and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need by the appellate authority, when affirmed by the High Court and free from legal or jurisdictional infirmity, will not be interfered with, and new factual pleas not raised below cannot be urged for the first time before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a new factual plea not urged during the constitutional petition in the High Court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement of landlords warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does temporary stay of landlords at another place to look after agricultural land deprive them of their right to claim personal need of business premises?
  Read full judgment →