Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Aboul Rehman And Other1986 SCMR 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order by the District Judge, Sargodha, directing the petitioner to surrender possession of a demised shop to the respondent-landlord. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises and whether the existing lease agreement precluded eviction by creating a perpetual tenancy. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that the District Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide need. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the lease agreement contemplated a perpetual tenancy, finding no evidence that the landlord intended to deprive himself of statutory rights under rent laws. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its limited constitutional jurisdiction by refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a proper interpretation of the lease agreement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for re-evaluating factual findings properly determined by lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a lease agreement providing for rent enhancement necessarily create a perpetual tenancy that bars a landlord from seeking eviction?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in the exercise of its limited constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a landlord debarred from seeking eviction under rent laws if the lease agreement contemplates a continuance of tenancy on enhanced rent?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs United States Agency for International1986 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant sought to sue the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.-AID) for salary arrears and compensation. The trial court dismissed the application to sue in forma pauperis, ruling that the respondents enjoyed diplomatic immunity. The High Court affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether the dismissal order was appealable and whether the immunity certificate issued by the Federal Government was conclusive. The Court held that the dismissal order, based on the bar of immunity, effectively functioned as a rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and was thus appealable. Regarding the immunity certificate, the Court affirmed that under Section 4 of the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act 1972, such a certificate is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that objections regarding the mode of proof of a document must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court and cannot be entertained for the first time during appellate proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the respondents' diplomatic immunity.
Questions settled- Whether an order dismissing an application to sue in forma pauperis on the ground of diplomatic immunity is appealable?
- Can an objection regarding the mode of proof of a document be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Is a certificate issued by the Federal Government regarding the diplomatic status of a foreign mission conclusive evidence under the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act 1972?
- Does the State Immunity Ordinance 1981 apply to pending revision proceedings?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The Government of Pakistan And Other1986 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging orders of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions as well as their subsequent review petitions. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the significant delay in filing the petitions for leave to appeal against the original judgments, as well as the delay in filing the review petitions before the High Court, could be condoned. The petitioners' counsel contended that the review applications were filed late due to an erroneous belief that the limitation period was 90 days and argued that the petitions for leave to appeal were within time regarding the dismissal of the review petitions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing to condone the delay in the review petitions as no plausible explanation was offered. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit or valid grounds for condonation of the 449-day delay and dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an erroneous impression of counsel regarding the limitation period constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal against an order dismissing a time-barred review petition can revive limitation for challenging the main judgment?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Sardar Muhammad1986 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against a single judgment of the High Court dismissing his civil revisions. The core legal controversy concerned a dispute over 31 marlas of land gifted by a common donor, where the High Court had divided the land equally between the two competing claimants. Both parties sought sole entitlement to the entire property. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-evaluate the factual evidence already assessed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no important question of law was raised and declined to undertake a reappraisal of evidence on record. The Supreme Court established the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted merely for a reappraisal of evidence when no substantial question of law of public importance arises from the impugned judgment.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no substantial question of law is raised?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Abdul Karim And Other1986 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a plot measuring 17 Marlas and 3 Sarsais by the Administrator (Residual Property) and Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. 8. The petitioner had contested the findings of the Settlement Authorities, alleging misreading of evidence and facts. The High Court, after a detailed examination, found no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence that would justify interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the High Court rejected the petitioner's request for a remand for further inquiry or demarcation, reasoning that such action would lead to frivolous, protracted litigation and a waste of public time. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the High Court's findings, noting that the issues raised were purely factual and lacked any significant question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, reinforcing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked to re-examine factual findings absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge factual findings of Settlement Authorities where no legal infirmity is established?
- Is a court justified in refusing a remand for further inquiry when such a request would lead to frivolous and protracted litigation?
- Does a petition raising only questions of fact warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Ghulam Muhammad Memon And Another vs The State And Another1986 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, which had partially allowed an appeal filed by the petitioner, Asad Mujtaba. The High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioners sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court determined that the impugned judgment of the High Court required further examination to ascertain whether it was based on the correct principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave in both petitions, directing that the resulting appeals be heard together. The judgment essentially serves as an order granting leave to appeal, identifying that the legal reasoning applied by the High Court in maintaining the conviction while modifying the sentence warrants a comprehensive review by the apex court to ensure adherence to established criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does a High Court judgment maintaining a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing the sentence to life imprisonment warrant further review by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the need to determine if a High Court judgment is founded on correct principles of criminal justice?
- Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Arif And Other1986 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a connected petition by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involves the reliability of related eye-witness testimony and material discrepancies regarding whether relatives accompanied the deceased to the hospital as opposed to the police bringing the body. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding discrepancies in the medical evidence vis-a-vis the First Information Report and the interested nature of the eye-witnesses necessitate a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both the convict's petition and the complainant's enhancement petition. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding crucial facts like the presence of relatives at the hospital, a re-appraisal of evidence is warranted to determine safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether material discrepancies between the First Information Report and medical evidence warrant a re-appraisal of evidence in a murder case?
- Can the testimony of close relatives be safely relied upon without corroboration when contradictions exist regarding the transportation of the deceased to the hospital?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of conviction in a criminal matter?
- Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Muhammad Akbar Qureshi And Other1986 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns a dispute over the transfer of a residential house in Lahore among four occupants under settlement laws. The primary legal question revolved around whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the settlement authorities' findings regarding the divisibility of the property and the mode of division among the occupants. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion on divisibility or interfere unless statutory authorities act arbitrarily or violate the law, the Division Bench of the High Court correctly restored the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's original division of the property. The Court reasoned that the house was clearly divisible and out of four occupants, only the petitioner remained dissatisfied, while the others accepted the arrangement. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may interfere with a settlement authority's mode of division if the authority acted arbitrarily, but where the property is divisible and the division based on possession is just, such arrangement warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Can the High Court substitute its own opinion as to the divisibility of a house or the mode of division adopted by settlement authorities?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with the findings and decisions of statutory settlement authorities?
- Does the failure of co-occupants to challenge a settlement order affect the validity of a property division?
- Ghulam Hussain vs Mst. Roshan Bibi1986 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner-tenant's appeal against an ejectment order. The petitioner was directed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to deposit arrears and future rent, but failed to do so in the designated ejectment proceedings, claiming instead to have deposited rent in separate miscellaneous proceedings. The Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance due to non-compliance and ordered ejectment. The High Court upheld the order, finding the petitioner negligent and noting that the premises had since been demolished after possession was handed over. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the tenant was bound to deposit the rent in accordance with the specific directions of the tentative rent order, and that failure to do so justified the striking off of the defence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's deposit of rent in separate miscellaneous proceedings satisfies the requirement of a tentative rent order passed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is the Rent Controller justified in striking off the defence of a tenant who fails to deposit rent in terms of the order passed under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the subsequent demolition of demised premises after execution of an ejectment order affect the validity of the underlying default determination?
- Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Sher Muhammad1986 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil revision petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment regarding the restoration of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the limitation period under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 commences from the date of the dismissal of the suit or from the date the plaintiff acquires knowledge of such dismissal. The petitioners contend that the High Court erred by applying a 'date of knowledge' standard, arguing that Article 163 explicitly prescribes a thirty-day limitation period starting from the date of dismissal, whereas the 'date of knowledge' standard is reserved for defendants under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court misconstrued the statutory limitation provisions applicable to plaintiffs versus defendants in cases of default dismissal, thereby necessitating a definitive interpretation of the commencement of limitation under the relevant articles.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for an application to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence from the date of dismissal or the date of knowledge?
- Is the 'date of knowledge' standard applicable to plaintiffs seeking restoration of a suit dismissed for default under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern the limitation period for plaintiffs or defendants in the context of suit restoration?
- Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Ghulam Haider Khan And Other1986 SCMR 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' (vendees/defendants) revisions concerning the rejection of a plaint. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents' plaint should have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to an alleged deficiency in the court-fee paid, specifically regarding the statement of net profits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that even if the correct statement of net profits had been produced, the court-fee paid would have remained proper. The Court dismissed the petitioners' argument regarding the reliance on certain documents as hyper-technical and concluded that no contravention of law had occurred that would warrant the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. Relying on the precedent established in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the lower court's dismissal of the revisions.
Questions settled- Does a failure to produce a statement of net profits automatically necessitate the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court refuse to reject a plaint if the court-fee paid would have been sufficient regardless of the statement of net profits?
- Ghulam Hussain And Another vs Miran Alias Mir Muhammad1986 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had allowed revision applications filed by the respondent. The dispute originated from suits for specific performance of contracts of sale regarding survey No. 271 in Jacobabad, involving both written and oral agreements. While the trial court initially decreed the suits in favor of the respondent, the Additional District Judge dismissed them, ruling they were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the suits were filed beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of refusal of performance. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that the factual determination regarding the limitation period was sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law existed to warrant interference, and the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court's restoration of the trial court's decrees.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if the plaintiff fails to prove the suit was brought within three years of the refusal of performance?
- Does a finding of fact regarding the limitation period by the High Court in revision constitute a question of law justifying leave to appeal?
- Ghulam Haider vs Mst. Ghulam Janna T1986 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the respondent's pre-emption suit based on being a co-sharer and collateral. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in their concurrent factual findings regarding the right of pre-emption and co-sharership, and whether there was any misreading or non-reading of evidence, particularly regarding revenue records. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower forums regarding co-sharership and pre-emption rights did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, misreading, or non-reading of evidence that would warrant interference by the apex court in civil revision or leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a material illegality, jurisdictional defect, or glaring misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a plea of being a co-sharer raised in arguments be entertained when it was not urged in the written statement?
- Does a misreading of revenue evidence warrant interference in civil revision if no jurisdictional error is established?
- Ghulam Haider vs Allah Yar And Another1986 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal matter where an accused was charged under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a complaint filed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Sessions Judge, after an inquiry, concluded that a case under Section 304 was prima facie made out and directed the trial to proceed before a Magistrate. The High Court set aside this order, holding that the Sessions Judge was mandatorily required to conduct the trial personally once an offence was disclosed. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge, upon taking cognizance, is legally compelled to try the case themselves or if they may entrust it to a competent Magistrate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Sessions Judge is not required to personally try every case where an offence is disclosed. The Court established that a Sessions Judge possesses the power to entrust a case to a competent Magistrate for trial, rejecting the view that the complainant could dictate the forum by inflating allegations.
Questions settled- Is a Sessions Judge mandatorily required to personally try a case once an offence is disclosed in a complaint?
- Does a Sessions Judge have the legal authority to entrust a trial to a competent Magistrate after taking cognizance of a complaint?
- Can a complainant dictate the forum of trial by inflating allegations in a complaint?
- Ghulam Haider (Represented by Legal Heir) vs Mst. Raj Bharri and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court declaring a second appeal to have abated due to the failure of the deceased appellant's legal representatives to apply for substitution within the prescribed period. The core legal questions were whether the appeal had abated, whether the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 applied retrospectively to pending proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay in substitution, particularly regarding minor and Pardahnashin heirs. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's refusal to condone the delay was a judicious exercise of discretion. The Court affirmed that the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is not retrospective and does not revive proceedings that had already abated prior to its enforcement. Furthermore, the Court established that where a decree is indivisible, abatement against one legal representative results in the abatement of the entire appeal. Consequently, the Court held that once an appeal abates, the court lacks jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money, as the legal representatives lack locus standi to pursue the matter.
Questions settled- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply retrospectively to appeals that had already abated prior to its enforcement?
- Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after an appeal has abated?
- Does the abatement of an appeal against one legal representative result in the abatement of the entire appeal when the decree is indivisible?
- Is the right of pre-emption a personal right or one that survives to legal representatives?
- Ghulam Dastgir And Others vs Hidayat And Other1986 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of fact regarding the succession to the tenancy of a State land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The respondents filed a declaratory suit claiming a one-third share in the suit land as heirs of the deceased original tenant, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court in civil revision. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the respondents to succession as heirs of the original propositus. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were unexceptionable and declined to interfere, thereby dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact on matters of succession unless a compelling justification is made out.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding succession to a tenancy?
- Does a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lie against concurrent decrees on a question of fact?
- Ghazi Khan And Another vs The State1986 SCMR 1110 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding their conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference with concurrent findings of fact through a reappraisal of evidence was warranted in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charges against the petitioners beyond any shadow of doubt, and the Court declined to reopen findings of facts or reappraise the evidence as requested by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, establishing that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence to interfere with concurrent factual findings when guilt is proven beyond doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts?
- Is leave to appeal granted where the prosecution has proved charges beyond doubt?
- Ghaus vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1986 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the allotment of land. The dispute arose when the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled an allotment previously granted to the private respondents, citing misrepresentation and fraud regarding the calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units. The respondents successfully challenged this cancellation in the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1956, arguing they were denied a fair hearing. The petitioner, who was subsequently granted the disputed land following the initial cancellation, sought leave to appeal, contending that the respondents failed to implead him as a party in the Constitutional petition, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's complaint regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard in the proceedings affecting his interest in the land required further examination. The Court directed an expedited disposal of the appeal, allowing the parties to present additional documentation while relying on the existing record.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead a subsequent allottee in a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of a prior allotment violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a party whose rights are affected by a court order entitled to be heard in the proceedings?
- General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and Another vs Bashir A. Malik and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses whether a Shift Engineer employed at a hotel is a 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The respondent was dismissed for misconduct after a domestic inquiry and challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court, which held he was not a workman due to his supervisory role over other staff. The Lahore High Court, via a Single Judge and a Division Bench, reversed this finding, ruling that his duties involved physical and mental toil and occasional manual work during emergencies, thus making him a workman. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the nature of his duties, holding that the primary and substantial part of an employee's work determines their status, not incidental, occasional, or emergency manual tasks, nor purely mental toil. The Court concluded that the respondent's role as a qualified engineer required expert technical knowledge rather than manual labour. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, recalled the High Court's writ, and restored the Labour Court's order.
Questions settled- Whether a Shift Engineer whose primary duties involve technical expertise and supervision qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the performance of occasional or emergency manual tasks convert an otherwise supervisory or technical employee into a workman?
- Is mental toil encompassed within the expression 'manual labour' as defined in labour legislation?
- What is the correct test to determine whether an employee is a workman under industrial and labor statutes?
- General Manager Overseas Telecommunications Karachi vs Khalid1986 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the reversion order of a civil servant and granted him back pay. The respondent-department challenged the Tribunal's decision, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation, specifically regarding the theory of a "continuous wrong" as a basis for condoning delay in service matters. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's application of the "continuous wrong" theory, if accepted, would effectively render the statutory period of limitation for filing appeals to the Service Tribunal meaningless. Finding that the submissions regarding the misconstruction of limitation law and the erroneous application of the continuous wrong theory deserved deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the legal issues raised regarding the proper interpretation of limitation provisions in service appeals required a formal hearing on the merits.
Questions settled- Can the theory of a continuous wrong be applied to bypass statutory limitation periods for filing appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does an adverse order against a civil servant constitute a continuous wrong for the purposes of limitation?
- Under what circumstances can delay in filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal be condoned under the Limitation Act 1908?
- General Investment Limited vs Dubai Bank Limited1986 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Dubai Bank Limited filed a recovery suit against the petitioner company and its directors under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The trial court decreed the suit, and the petitioner's appeal to the High Court faced stay rejection, leading to previous Supreme Court proceedings and a remand order directing the High Court to evaluate the sufficiency of mortgage security. The High Court appointed the Nazar as a commissioner to assess valuation, and a dispute arose over whether the plot was commercialized and whether the Karachi Development Authority or the Karachi Municipal Corporation was the competent authority for commercialization sanction. The High Court rejected the Nazar's valuation, held the security insufficient, and ordered fresh security without determining the exact shortfall as mandated by the Supreme Court's remand order. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court properly considered the evidence regarding commercialization and whether it failed to follow the remand directions regarding the shortfall determination, suspending the operation of the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is bound to determine the exact shortfall in mortgage security when a case is remanded for that specific purpose under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Which authority is competent under the law to sanction the conversion of a residential plot for commercial purposes in Karachi?
- Can a High Court reject a commissioner's valuation report regarding mortgage security without proper reference to evidence and without determining the proper valuation?
- General Bark Of Netherland Ltd. Central, Karachi. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1986 CL. 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns six petitions for leave to appeal filed by a foreign banking company against a judgment of the High Court of Sind. The core legal question is whether interest earned on dollar securities deposited by the petitioner's Head Office in New York is taxable as income accruing or arising from a business connection in Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner, determining that the securities constituted capital assets transferred to Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and related rules, thereby rendering the interest taxable. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's contention that the High Court erred in using regulatory banking laws to determine the place of income accrual and that interest accrues based on ownership and location of issuance rather than the mere deposit of securities, found that these issues were of general public importance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation on the nexus between regulatory banking asset requirements and the taxability of foreign-sourced income.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of securities by a foreign bank in a local bank for regulatory compliance constitute a transfer of capital assets to Pakistan for the purposes of Section 42(1) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
- Can the provisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 and Banking Companies Rules 1963 be used to determine the place of accrual of income for tax purposes?
- Does interest income on securities accrue at the location of the securities' issuance and encashment, or at the location of the bank's business connection?
- General Bank of Netherland Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Karachi1986 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns six petitions for leave to appeal filed by a foreign banking company, General Bank of Netherland Ltd., challenging the taxability of interest earned on dollar securities deposited in New York. The core legal question is whether interest income earned by a non-resident company on securities held outside Pakistan constitutes income accruing or arising from a business connection in Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court had previously ruled against the petitioner, holding that the securities were assets transferred to Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and thus taxable. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petitions, identified significant questions of law regarding whether the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and Banking Companies Rules, 1963, are relevant to determining the place of income accrual for tax purposes, and whether interest accrues based on ownership or the location of the securities. Finding these issues to be of general public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the territorial scope of income taxation.
Questions settled- Does the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and the Banking Companies Rules, 1963, determine the place of accrual of income for tax purposes?
- Is interest income from securities taxable in Pakistan if the securities are deposited outside Pakistan?
- Does the deposit of securities as a regulatory requirement constitute a transfer of capital assets within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Feroze vs Bakhsha And 14 Other1986 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting six respondents previously convicted of murder. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in applying an inflexible rule requiring independent corroboration for the testimony of "interested" witnesses, thereby disregarding other circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on artificial and superficial grounds, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside the acquittal, restored the convictions, and modified the sentences to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that there is no inflexible rule that the statement of an "interested" witness can never be accepted without independent corroboration. Instead, corroboration may be sufficiently afforded by the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the attack, the number of culprits involved, and the probability of the named persons participating in the crime. The Court emphasized that the totality of evidence, including motive and ocular testimony, must be considered to satisfy the judicial mind regarding the truthfulness of the witnesses.
Questions settled- Is there an inflexible rule that the testimony of an interested witness requires independent corroboration?
- Can circumstances such as the nature of an attack and the number of culprits serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of motive automatically invalidate the conviction of other accused persons where evidence is otherwise sufficient?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Nazir Ahmad Swati And Another1986 SCMR 2001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had directed the reinstatement of the respondent, Nazir Ahmad Swati, into government service with full consequential benefits. The respondent had been retired from service under Martial Law Regulation No. 114. The core legal question was whether the respondent's retirement was justified based on the record, specifically regarding an adverse entry in his annual confidential report from 1969 while serving under the Government of N.-W.F.P. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the order of reinstatement unexceptionable. The Court held that there were no valid grounds to justify the respondent's retirement, noting that the respondent had successfully completed his probation in the Ministry of Commerce and that no adverse reports were recorded against him during the remainder of his service. The Court concluded that it could be assumed the respondent had rectified the earlier reported defect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that retirement actions must be supported by valid, substantiated grounds rather than stale or rectified adverse remarks.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be retired based on an adverse annual confidential report entry that was subsequently rectified or not followed by further adverse reports?
- Does the successful completion of a probationary period imply the removal of prior defects in service record?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal empowered to adjudicate appeals regarding retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Ghulam Akbar Bhutto1986 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a direct appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had set aside the reversion of the respondent, Ghulam Akbar Bhutto, from Grade-19 to Grade-18 under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act. The core legal questions examined were whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on grounds of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest, and whether the powers reserved under section 12-A were rightly invoked in this case. The Supreme Court held that orders passed under section 12-A are reviewable by the Service Tribunal only on limited grounds such as coram-non-judice, mala fide in fact, or mala fide in law. The Court found that the respondent's Grade-19 appointment resulted from political maneuvering and extraneous influence rather than lawful policy, and therefore the Service Tribunal erred in setting aside the competent authority's order of reversion. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Service Tribunal's judgment was reversed.
Questions settled- Whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest?
- On what grounds can an order passed under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act be reviewed by the Service Tribunal?
- Whether an appointment procured through political influence and non-statutory interference justifies the reversion of a civil servant under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry Of Health And Others vs Nisaruddin Khan And Other1986 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, brought with the leave of the Supreme Court, arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which partly accepted an employee's appeal and directed payment of gratuity for service rendered under the defunct Provincial Malaria Eradication Board. The core legal question concerned the construction of the saving provisions of the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975, specifically whether the liabilities and obligations of the repealed Board, including fringe benefits such as gratuity agreed upon via a Board resolution, devolved upon the Federal Government. The Supreme Court held that upon the repeal of the Malaria Eradication Board Ordinance, 1961, all liabilities and obligations of the Board became those of the Federal Government by virtue of section 2(2)(b) of the Repealing Act, and the Government could not disown them. The Court laid down the principle that statutory savings clauses transferring liabilities of a dissolved body bind the successor government to honor accrued employee benefits and financial obligations created under prior resolutions.
Questions settled- Whether the liabilities and obligations of the repealed Malaria Eradication Board devolved upon the Federal Government under the Malaria Eradication Board (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Is an employee entitled to claim gratuity benefits conferred by a resolution of the defunct Malaria Eradication Board after its repeal?
- Whether the Federal Government is bound to honor financial obligations and liabilities created by the erstwhile Malaria Eradication Board?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Establishment Division vs Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad1986 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, regarding the fixation of seniority of a civil servant in the Police Group. The core legal question was whether a civil servant's seniority in a promotional grade should be counted from the date of his continuous officiation or from the date of his regular appointment/confirmation. The Supreme Court held that under the relevant statutory provisions and rules, seniority takes effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade rather than the date of continuous officiation. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's decision granting seniority from the date of officiation, while accepting the alternative plea that seniority should be reckoned from the date of confirmation. The key principle laid down is that seniority in a grade for a civil servant is to be determined from the date of regular appointment and substantive confirmation, and not from provisional or officiating service.
Questions settled- Whether seniority of a civil servant in a promoted grade takes effect from the date of continuous officiation or from the date of regular appointment?
- Does an officiating service as a Superintendent of Police confer a right to seniority from the initial date of officiation under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority from the date of confirmation when regular appointment occurred on that date?
- Federation of Pakistan And Others vs Hashim Shah Qureshi1986 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the impugned judgment and hearing the Deputy Attorney-General, granted leave to appeal to examine significant legal questions regarding the status of civil servants. The core legal issues concern whether the expiry of a probation period results in automatic confirmation or requires an express order, whether a temporary employee becomes permanent simply by the passage of time, and whether termination under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, necessitates a finding of public interest. The Court suspended the operation of the Tribunal's judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal. The judgment serves as a procedural order framing the legal questions to be settled by the Court regarding the interpretation of service rules and the statutory requirements for the termination of temporary civil servants.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of a probation period result in the automatic confirmation of a civil servant, or is an express order required?
- Can a civil servant who has not received an express order of confirmation be considered permanent merely because their probation period has expired?
- Is it a statutory requirement that an order of termination for a temporary employee under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 must be based on public interest?
- Can a civil servant expressly appointed on a temporary basis be legally treated as a permanent civil servant?
- Federation of Pakistan and Others vs Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Other1986 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the refusal of the Federation of Pakistan to issue import permits for 126 Isuzu truck chassis under the 'Gift Scheme' for overseas Pakistanis. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively apply a revised, restrictive definition of 'new' vehicles—requiring them to be of the latest model and purchased directly from manufacturers—to deny permits for vehicles already contracted for under the prior policy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had fully complied with the requirements of the scheme in force at the time of application. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ruling that the government could not unilaterally and retrospectively alter criteria to frustrate vested rights acquired through bona fide compliance with existing regulations. The Court laid down the principle that executive discretion must be exercised reasonably and fairly, and that administrative authorities are bound by the specific grounds initially provided for their decisions. Furthermore, vested rights cannot be overridden by subsequent policy changes unless expressly authorized by law.
Questions settled- Can an administrative authority retrospectively apply a new policy definition to deny import permits for goods contracted under a previous policy?
- Does an applicant acquire a vested right to an import permit upon satisfying the conditions of a government scheme in force at the time of application?
- Is an executive agency bound by the specific grounds it initially provides for refusing an administrative request?
- Does the principle of promissory estoppel apply to prevent the government from frustrating rights created under an export/import promotion scheme?
- Federation of Pakistan And Others vs Amjad Hussain Dilawari And Other1986 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan filed three separate petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which followed a previous decision on a question of law in M. Afzal & Sons v. Federal Government of Pakistan and allowed the constitutional petitions filed by the respondents. The core legal question involved the correctness of the legal proposition determined in the earlier Lahore High Court judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since leave to appeal had already been granted in connected petitions involving the identical question of law, leave to appeal should be granted in the present matters as well so that the cases may be heard together. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are pending adjudication before the apex court in connected matters, leave to appeal is appropriately granted for consolidated hearing.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an identical question of law is already pending adjudication in connected petitions before the Supreme Court?
- Can constitutional petitions be decided following a precedent established in earlier reported judgments of the High Court?
- Federation of Pakistan And Another vs Rao Muhammad Yasin Khan1986 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed the legal authority to issue a direction declaring that the first respondent should be deemed to have continued in N.P.S. 19 following his reversion from the Northern Areas, including the entitlement to all consequential benefits, despite the admitted fact that the respondent had not been regularly promoted to Grade 19. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Tribunal's powers in service matters regarding deemed promotions and the granting of consequential benefits in the absence of a regular promotion. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court modified the interim order by suspending the operation of the Tribunal's direction concerning the respondent's appointment to the higher post. The Court further directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, while granting the parties liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Is the Federal Service Tribunal legally empowered to direct that a civil servant be deemed to have continued in a higher grade after reversion, despite the absence of a regular promotion?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal grant consequential benefits for a higher post to which a civil servant was not regularly promoted?
- Fazalur Rahman vs Mst. Sarwari Begum And Other1986 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment petition filed against a tenant for failure to deposit rent in accordance with a court order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the tenant's defence due to late deposits of rent, specifically when the tenant argued the delays were not willful and were caused by administrative difficulties. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the Rent Controller acted within their competence to strike off the defence when the tenant failed to comply with the court's direction to deposit rent by the 5th of each month. The Court emphasized that a tenant who consistently chooses to deposit rent on the final permissible date assumes the risk of any delay, regardless of the reasons provided, such as the absence of court staff. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, finding no legal error in the lower courts' refusal to condone the defaults, while granting the tenant a two-month grace period to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller empowered to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to deposit rent by the court-ordered deadline?
- Does a tenant who consistently deposits rent on the last permissible day assume the risk of default if the deposit is delayed?
- Can a tenant claim the absence of court staff as a valid excuse for failing to deposit rent on time?
- Fazalur Rahman And Others vs Haleem Khan1986 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee-defendant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a revision petition filed by the decree-holder and maintained the rejection of the petitioner's objection to the execution of a pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit stands dismissed for failure to deposit an additional amount allegedly due for stamp paper expenses when that amount was not specified in the operative penal portion of the judgment or the formal decree. The Supreme Court held that penal provisions resulting in the dismissal of a suit must be construed strictly and cannot be extended to sums not explicitly specified, included, and linked to the penal clause in the decree. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that execution is governed by the terms of the decree as drawn, and a party cannot import unexpressed findings from a judgment to enforce penal consequences not incorporated into the final decree.
Questions settled- Can a penal consequence of the dismissal of a pre-emption suit be attached to the non-payment of an amount not specified in the operative penal order or the formal decree?
- How should a penal order regarding the deposit of pre-emption money and costs be construed?
- Whether execution of a decree can be refused based on findings recorded in a judgment that were not incorporated into the final decree.
- Fazalur Rahman and Others vs General Manager, S.I.D.B. and Another1986 PLD Supreme Court 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from the compulsory acquisition of land in Haripur for the benefit of the Small Industries Development Board (S.I.D.B.), where the appellant sought enhanced compensation through objection proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Senior Civil Judge increased the market value of the suit land, but the Peshawar High Court reduced the compensation amount on appeal, relying primarily on the time difference between notifications issued under section 4 of the said Act for adjacent villages. The core legal question concerns the correct method for determining the market value and potential value of compulsorily acquired land. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that land must be valued not merely by its current use at the time of acquisition, but also by its potential uses and future capabilities. The key principle laid down is that assessing authorities and courts must consider all present and future advantages and potential development value, rather than relying exclusively on past sale transactions or temporal differences in notifications.
Questions settled- Should land being compulsorily acquired be valued solely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition?
- Can the potential future use and capabilities of acquired land be taken into consideration while determining its market value?
- Is the difference in dates of notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alone sufficient to determine the compensation amount for adjacent lands?
- Are past sales the sole accurate measure for determining the price of land intended to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Fazal Rahman vs Amir Haider And Another1986 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits where the respondents sought to pre-empt a sale of mortgagee rights. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suits, finding that the respondents failed to establish a superior right of pre-emption and that they could not introduce new grounds at the appellate stage. The High Court, however, remanded the case, allowing the respondents to amend their pleadings to argue ownership by afflux of time. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court erred in this remand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact and allowing a new plea not raised in the trial court. The Court affirmed that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and cannot introduce new, alternative cases at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, ruling that appellate courts should not remand cases to permit the framing of new issues that were not part of the original trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new plea in a second appeal that was not raised in the trial court?
- Is the High Court permitted to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a second appeal?
- Should an appellate court remand a case to allow a party to amend their pleadings to include a new ground of claim?
- Fazal Haq And Others vs Muhammad Ramzan And Other1986 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitutional petition against concurrent findings of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The core legal question concerns whether tenants can avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment orders were correctly passed, noting that the respondents had been established as the landlords of the property in dispute, a finding that had become unassailable. The Court affirmed that the petitioners' default in rent payment, predicated on their challenge to the respondents' title, justified the ejectment. The key principle laid down is that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and the landlord's title is effectively settled, a tenant cannot unilaterally withhold rent or avoid ejectment on the basis of a pending, separate title dispute in civil courts.
Questions settled- Can a tenant avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil proceedings?
- Is an order of ejectment sustainable when the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established and the landlord's title is unassailable?
- Fazal Dad And Others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 2003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit instituted by the petitioners claiming superior right as tenants against the respondent-vendee. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the petitioners were tenants only of a specific Khasra number which had been transferred back to the vendor through a civil court decree, and thus could not maintain the pre-emption suit. The appellate, revisional, and writ courts successively maintained this finding, noting that the civil court decree remained unsatised or unreversed. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-emption suit could be maintained regarding land held by a civil court decree to be in the ownership of the vendor and not included in the sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted as the concurrent findings of fact regarding the civil court decree and tenancy status were unassailable and involved no question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on land transferred back to the vendor through a civil court decree?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of revenue courts based on an operative civil court decree?
- Fazal Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad And Another1986 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal sought the enhancement of a sentence imposed on the respondent, Bashir Ahmad, who was convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Yusaf. The trial court had originally sentenced the respondent to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (nearly five years), citing factors such as the respondent's share in a tube-well, unexplained injuries to a co-accused, the infliction of a single spear blow, and the respondent's detention period. However, the High Court increased the compensation payable to the heirs from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court exercised judicious discretion given the circumstances of a sudden fight in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the Court noted that significant time had elapsed since the High Court's order, and the respondent would have completed the original sentence by the time of the hearing.
Questions settled- Does the High Court exercise judicious discretion when reducing a sentence for a murder committed during a sudden fight?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to enhance a sentence when the respondent has already served the duration of the original sentence due to the passage of time?
- Is an increase in compensation a relevant factor in determining the adequacy of a reduced prison sentence?
- Fateh Sher vs Sarfraz And Other1986 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment, which had set aside a remand order issued by a Member of the Board of Revenue regarding consolidation proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction by interfering with a factual finding made by the Board of Revenue, specifically regarding whether the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing and was a party to a Collector's order dated 15-7-1971. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its exercise of writ jurisdiction by setting aside the remand order based on a disputed question of fact, particularly when the Board of Revenue had reached its conclusion after examining the official record. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the Board of Revenue's order, and directed that the issue of the petitioner's participation in the 15-7-1971 proceedings be examined during the remand. The key principle established is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to overturn findings of fact made by a revenue authority based on the examination of the record.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Member of the Board of Revenue in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a remand order passed by the Board of Revenue based on an examination of the record subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Should a court in writ jurisdiction set aside a remand order based on disputed factual assertions regarding a party's participation in proceedings?
- Fateh Khan vs The State1986 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a convict challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302 and Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, with concurrent sentences for the lesser offense. While the Supreme Court had previously dismissed the petition regarding the conviction and sentence, it issued a notice to the Advocate-General, Punjab, to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the calculation of his sentence. The core legal question was whether the statutory provision allowing for the deduction of pre-sentence detention period from the total sentence should be applied to the petitioner's life imprisonment term. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in calculating the remaining period of his life imprisonment. The judgment affirms the principle that the benefit of period spent in custody prior to conviction is mandatory and applicable to sentences of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the period spent in custody prior to conviction be deducted from a sentence of life imprisonment?
- Fateh Khan And Others vs State And Other1986 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the petitioners' conviction under Section 70 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, for demolishing a watercourse. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence connecting them to the crime, that the watercourse did not exist, and that the lower courts' findings were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference and whether the trial court had the legal authority to order the restoration of the watercourse. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the demolition of the watercourse were supported by evidence and did not merit interference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an order for the restoration of the watercourse was legally permissible under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 70(2) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The Court established that failing to explicitly cite the applicable law does not invalidate an order if the order is otherwise legally warranted.
Questions settled- Can a court order the restoration of a watercourse under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to explicitly cite the relevant statute in an order invalidate the order if it is otherwise legally warranted?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal revision matter?
- Fateh Ali vs Chief Engineer Irrigation And Another1986 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 addresses the legality of disciplinary proceedings and dismissal of a civil servant, specifically examining whether past service records could be used to uphold a punishment without prior notice, and whether a competent authority could substitute a dismissal order while an appeal was pending. The appellant, an Assistant Vernacular Clerk, was dismissed for unauthorized absence and taking private employment. During his departmental appeal, the competent authority substituted the original dismissal order with a new date without notice. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge by heavily relying on his past service record. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction to pass a revised order while an appeal was pending, that the initial orders were defective, and that past service records cannot be used against a civil servant without notice. The appeal was accepted, the impugned dismissal and appellate orders were set aside, and the department was permitted to hold a fresh inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether a competent authority can substitute or alter a dismissal order while a departmental appeal against it is pending?
- Can the past service record of a civil servant be used as a basis for upholding a punishment without putting the civil servant on prior notice?
- Whether an appellate authority is required to afford a personal hearing upon the refiling of a departmental appeal?
- Farooque And Others vs Nazir Ahmad And Other1986 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing a criminal revision against the Sessions Judge's order, which had rejected the petitioners' application to summon all police-investigation witnesses as court witnesses in a private complaint case. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for summoning witnesses during the concurrent trial of a police case and a private complaint, specifically whether a trial court is mandated to summon all witnesses examined during police investigations. The Supreme Court held that the courts below correctly followed the procedure established in Noor Elahi v. Ikramullah, affirming that the trial court is not required to summon all police-investigation witnesses as court witnesses in the private complaint, but only those intended to support the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that while the prosecution must produce its intended witnesses, complainants may summon additional witnesses as defence witnesses if so advised.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court is required to summon all witnesses examined by the police during investigation as court witnesses in a private complaint case?
- Does the concurrent trial of a police case and a private complaint necessitate the summoning of all police witnesses at the instance of the complainant?
- Can a complainant summon additional police-investigation witnesses through the court as defence witnesses?
- Farooq Nawaz And Others vs The State And Another1986 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioners by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners, along with others, were charged with the murder of Mst. Mustafa Jan and for causing gunshot injuries to two other individuals during an incident arising from a quarrel over children, for which a counter-version F.I.R. was also lodged. The Additional Sessions Judge initially granted bail to the accused in both cases, but the High Court subsequently cancelled the bail for the petitioners while maintaining it for another co-accused. The core legal question was whether a distinction in individual participation and common intention could be drawn at a premature stage to warrant differential treatment regarding bail when all accused were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that no such distinction can be drawn at a premature stage when each accused was similarly armed and participated by firing shots in the same transaction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that common intention and individual roles in cross-versions involving firearm use during a single transaction must be evaluated at trial rather than for granting disparate bail relief.
Questions settled- Can a distinction be drawn regarding individual participation and common intention at the bail stage when all accused persons were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction?
- Whether bail granted by a trial court can be interfered with by the High Court in cases involving cross-versions of a murder incident?
- Is it appropriate at a premature stage of the case to assess the cases of co-accused separately based on the number of injuries attributed to them?
- Faridul Hasan vs Muhammad Ayub1986 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order against a tenant operating a poultry business. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds that the tenant's business, involving the placement of poultry cages and the accumulation of waste, created a nuisance for the building's inhabitants. The tenant contended that the locality had transformed into a commercial area where similar businesses operated, arguing that he was unfairly singled out and that his activities did not constitute a nuisance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in a locality that has become a commercial hub, the operation of a specific business can be legally classified as a nuisance justifying eviction, especially when similar activities are prevalent in the vicinity. The Court also considered the applicability of legal precedents regarding nuisance in such contexts. The appeal was admitted for further hearing, with interim stay orders granted to maintain the status quo.
Questions settled- Does the operation of a business in a locality that has become a commercial area constitute a nuisance sufficient for eviction?
- Can a tenant be evicted for nuisance when similar business activities are being conducted by others in the same locality?
- Fakhar Ud Din vs Muhammad Mohsin And Other1986 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that upheld decisions by Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of disputed property. The central dispute involves conflicting claims of title: the petitioner claims the property was reserved as a plot and transferred to his predecessor-in-interest in 1962, while the respondents claim the property was a commercial unit purchased by their predecessor-in-interest via open auction in 1964. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Settlement Authorities' proceedings in two distinct channels actually concerned the same property. Key legal questions identified for resolution include whether the respondents had locus standi to challenge the petitioner's transfer, whether the 1962 reservation order took precedence over the 1964 auction, and the legal effect of the petitioner's delayed payment of the property price. Pending final adjudication, the Court ordered the maintenance of status quo, conditioned upon the petitioner providing security to compensate the respondents for the use and occupation of the property at a rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, effective from the date of the last adverse order.
Questions settled- Does a party have locus standi to challenge a property transfer if the properties in dispute are distinct?
- Does a property reservation order made in 1962 take legal precedence over an open auction conducted in 1964?
- What is the legal effect of a significant delay in the payment of the purchase price for property transferred under a reservation scheme?
- Faizanul Haq vs Settlement Authority And Another1986 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,736 from the petitioner in respect of a transferred property. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's liability to pay and adjust certain amounts under an agreement of association and subsequent transfer of property under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was liable to pay the price and other demands as payable by the original transfer order holder under the terms of the agreement dated 5-2-1964, and that the contention raised was merely a question of fact unsupported by the agreement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that a party seeking equitable relief is not entitled to it when guilty of suppressing pertinent facts.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to equitable relief from the court when found guilty of suppression of pertinent facts?
- Whether an agreement of association makes the transferee liable to pay the price and other demands payable by the original transfer order holder?
- Can a question of fact regarding financial adjustments under a settlement agreement be successfully agitated before the Supreme Court without support from the agreement?
- Faiz Muhammad vs Hadayat Khan And Other1986 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which acquitted nine respondents of charges under sections 148, 325, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning their convictions by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the High Court's acquittal, based on its preference for the defence's version of events over the prosecution's, was grounded in safe principles of criminal justice dispensation. The petitioner challenged the High Court's findings, arguing that the defence version was improbable and inconsistent with the physical evidence regarding the location of the incident. The Supreme Court, finding that the location of the occurrence—a critical aspect of the case—required deeper examination to determine if the acquittal was legally sound, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence and the probability of the competing versions necessitated a thorough review of the evidence to ensure the impugned order adhered to established principles of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal relies on a version of events that may contradict the established location of the crime?
- Is a finding by the High Court regarding the probability of competing prosecution and defence versions subject to review by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Faiz Muhammad And Others vs The State1986 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder and other offences arising from a fatal dispute over water irrigation rights. The core legal question was whether the appellants acted with a common intention to commit murder or if the incident constituted a sudden, unplanned quarrel where individual liability for the fatal blow could not be established. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove premeditation or specific individual liability for the fatal injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, altering them to convictions under Section 325/34 for causing grievous hurt. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal injury occurs during a sudden, spontaneous altercation without evidence of pre-concert, and the specific assailant cannot be identified, the court cannot infer a common intention to kill. Instead, the common intention is limited to the extent of causing grievous hurt, and significant delays in lodging the FIR combined with unreliable eyewitness testimony necessitate granting the benefit of the doubt regarding murder charges.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the evidence fails to identify which accused delivered the fatal blow during a sudden quarrel?
- Does a sudden, unplanned dispute over water rights negate the existence of a pre-concerted common intention to commit murder?
- Is it safe to rely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose presence at the scene is contradicted by other prosecution witnesses and whose report to the police was significantly delayed?
- When can a court alter a conviction from murder to causing grievous hurt under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Faiz Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Feroze And Another1986 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal as incompetent and observed that the appeal lacked merit. The core legal question addressed is whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition on the question of jurisdiction alone, holding that no second appeal is competent against a revisional order passed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that appellate jurisdiction in second appeal cannot be invoked against an order passed in revision by a District Court, though parties may pursue other available remedies before competent authorities if permissible.
Questions settled- Whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Faiz Muhammad And Others vs Ali Akbar And Other1986 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the allocation of tail water (Nikal) under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The core legal question involved the entitlement of landowners to Nikal water and the nature of the Instructions for the Guidance of Canal Officers in the Preparation and Modification of Warabandis, which the High Court had held to be directory. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise and signed a written agreement to share the Nikal water equally on an alternating weekly basis, with corresponding adjustments to be made by the Canal Authorities. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it in terms of the agreed compromise, laying down that matters regarding the distribution of warabandi and canal water can be lawfully resolved through a fair and binding settlement between the parties.
Questions settled- Can a dispute regarding the allocation of tail water under the Canal and Drainage Act be resolved on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Whether instructions for the guidance of canal officers in the preparation of warabandis are directory in nature?
- Are landowners entitled to claim Nikal water as a matter of right upon increasing their landholdings?
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Mst. Zakia Begum And 2 Other1986 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over property situated at the junction of Waris Road and Queens Road, Lahore. The property was treated as evacuee trust property and transferred to a private party, who subsequently obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). When the Evacuee Trust Property Board challenged the ownership, the transferee filed suits for perpetual injunction, which were decreed in her favor and upheld by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner (the Board) challenged these decisions, arguing that the civil suits were not maintainable because a reference regarding the nature of the property was pending before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to grant declarations under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits while proceedings were pending before the statutory authority and whether the statutory bar precluded civil court intervention.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a reference before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board bar the maintainability of a civil suit regarding the nature of the property?
- Is a Civil Court competent to grant a declaration regarding property status in light of the provisions of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Aqila Khatoon And Other1986 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared proceedings before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of a specific property to be illegal and without lawful authority. The dispute arose when a Deputy Administrator of Auqaf initiated proceedings to declare the property as evacuee trust property, claiming it was formerly a charitable hospital. The respondents challenged these proceedings, arguing that the property's status had already been determined against the Board in previous litigation and that the Board was estopped from re-agitating the matter. Furthermore, the property had been transferred to individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the premise that it was not evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the significance of the questions raised and the value of the property. The Court directed that these appeals be heard alongside other pending appeals involving similar legal questions and ordered the continuation of an existing stay order.
Questions settled- Can the Evacuee Trust Property Board re-agitate the status of a property if it has previously withdrawn from proceedings determining its character?
- Does the transfer of property to individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, preclude subsequent claims that the property is evacuee trust property?
- Ejaz Ahmad Butt vs Habib Bank Ltd. And Other1986 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former bank clerk, challenged his dismissal from service after being found guilty of several charges by the competent authority. While the Labour Court upheld the dismissal, the Appellate Labour Court reinstated the petitioner without back benefits, finding him guilty of only two charges. The High Court subsequently set aside the reinstatement, remanding the matter for reconsideration of the punishment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal possesses the legal authority to substitute a penalty imposed by a competent authority with a more lenient punishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellate Labour Court lacks the power to substitute punishment. The Court clarified that while Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine grievances—including examining the merits and legality of a dismissal—this power does not extend to substituting the penalty awarded by the employer. The principle established is that the scope of judicial review in such labour disputes is limited to determining the validity of the dismissal, not modifying the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal have the power to substitute a penalty imposed by a competent authority?
- Can a Labour Court substitute a punishment for that awarded by the competent authority under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the scope of the Labour Court's power when adjudicating and determining a grievance under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Dr. Sadaqat Ullah vs Abdul Majid And Other1986 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, regarding the transfer of a property unit in Hasilpur Mandi. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having already received a shop and a house, was entitled to the transfer of an additional house portion, and whether the transfer of said portion to the respondent without re-hearing the petitioner was unlawful. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's entitlement had been finalized in a previous order, which he failed to challenge, and that he was ineligible for a second house under the relevant settlement laws. The Court affirmed the transfer to the respondent, noting that the property was no longer available for transfer under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 once it had been validly transferred to another displaced person. The key principle laid down is that a claimant cannot re-litigate settled entitlements or claim additional property beyond the statutory limit of one house and one shop.
Questions settled- Can a claimant who has already received one house and one shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 claim an additional house?
- Is it necessary for settlement authorities to re-hear a claimant regarding property transfer when their entitlement has already been finalized in a previous order?
- Can property be transferred under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if it has already been transferred to another displaced person?
- Dr. Q.M. Qarni And Another vs Deputy Commissioner (East), Karachi And Other1986 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment concerning a land allotment dispute in Housing Scheme No. 33, Karachi. The core legal question is whether the revision of a tentative land layout plan, which corrected an excess in the petitioner's allotted area and reallocated land to another allottee, was legally valid and whether the petitioner was denied due process. The Supreme Court held that the initial layout plan was explicitly tentative and subject to adjustment, rendering the revision permissible. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had provided the petitioner with multiple opportunities to be heard and that the final demarcation was based on proper reasoning and official records. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the administrative authorities acted within their jurisdiction and that the petitioner's claims of procedural unfairness were unsubstantiated by the record. The principle laid down is that where a land layout plan is expressly designated as tentative and subject to adjustment, administrative authorities may revise it to ensure compliance with sanctioned allotment areas, provided due process and an opportunity for hearing are afforded to the affected parties.
Questions settled- Can a tentative land layout plan be revised by administrative authorities to correct discrepancies in allotted areas?
- Is a party entitled to challenge a land reallocation if the original layout plan was explicitly subject to adjustment?
- Does the correction of land demarcation based on sanctioned allotment limits constitute a violation of due process if the affected parties were heard?
- Dr. Muhammad Munir Ul Haq And Others vs Dr. Muhammad Latif CH. And Other1986 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Respondent No.1, a government servant, had tendered his resignation upon selection as a professor at Fatima Jinnah Medical College, which resignation was accepted in May 1975. Years later, following a High Court judgment holding that Fatima Jinnah Medical College stood nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972, respondent No.1 sought to treat his resignation as null and void and claimed continuous service and seniority. The Service Tribunal overruled limitation objections on grounds of substantial justice and allowed the claim on merits, holding that the resignation was given under a mistaken belief of law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial questions arose as to whether limitation bars could be bypassed through general observations and whether a person who voluntarily submitted a resignation could later repudiate their own act. The impugned order of the Service Tribunal was suspended.
Questions settled- Whether the question of the bar of limitation can be overcome by making general observations regarding substantial justice?
- Can a government servant who has voluntarily submitted a resignation that was accepted be allowed to subsequently repudiate their own act?
- Does a resignation tendered under a mistaken belief regarding the institutional status of a nationalized college become null and void?
- Dr. Ghulam Bheek And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1986 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the primary respondent passed away on August 10, 1975. The core legal question was whether the appeal could proceed despite the appellant's failure to bring the deceased respondent's legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period, and whether the delay in doing so should be condoned. The Court observed that under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, the appellant was required to file an application for substitution within ninety days of the death. Despite multiple notices from the Court office and the appellant's own counsel, the appellant failed to provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives for years. Even when the matter was finally heard, the appellant failed to provide the necessary details or show sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to condone the delay, and as the appeal was improperly constituted, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of failing to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within the time prescribed by the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1956?
- Can an appeal proceed if the appellant fails to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased respondent despite receiving multiple notices from the Court?
- Is the Court justified in refusing to condone a delay in substituting legal representatives when the appellant has been aware of the death for several years?
- DR. Behram Khan. vs Nasir Ahmed Bacha and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which affirmed the Sessions Court's order granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a murder case under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was present in a car along with his co-accused brother who shot the deceased, and that he uttered a lalkara (instigation). The Supreme Court examined whether the facts justified granting bail as of right under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and addressed concerns regarding elaborate judicial observations at the bail stage. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that once a court tentatively finds that no reasonable grounds exist for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence, release on bail under Section 497(2) is mandatory. The Court further clarified that trial courts must remain uninfluenced by tentative factual observations made in bail orders and emphasized keeping bail decisions concise.
Questions settled- Does Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 leave judicial discretion to withhold bail once the court finds no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Should trial courts be influenced by tentative factual observations made by higher courts while granting or refusing bail?
- Is deep factual analysis and an elaborate judgment necessary for deciding a bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Dr. Behram Khan vs Nasir Ahmad Bacha And Other1986 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail previously granted by the Sessions Judge, Quetta, to the respondent, who was facing trial for offences under section 302 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the cancellation of bail in light of established precedents regarding the evaluation of prosecution evidence, specifically eye-witness accounts and circumstantial evidence. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case required further examination of the principles governing bail cancellation as articulated in prior Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer of the case file to Lahore for an expedited hearing, acknowledging the legitimacy of the request for an early resolution of the matter.
Questions settled- Does the presence of eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence necessitate the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court transfer the venue of a pending appeal for an expedited hearing upon the request of counsel?
- Dr. Abdul Malik vs Raja Khurshid Ali And Other1986 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption claim involving a tenant. The core legal question presented was whether the requirement of 'Talab' (the formal demand for pre-emption) is applicable when a tenant seeks to pre-empt property under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. During the proceedings, the parties reached a consensus to remand the case to the High Court for a comprehensive decision on the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court. The High Court was directed to adjudicate the case on its merits, specifically determining whether the performance of 'Talab' is a necessary legal prerequisite for a tenant exercising pre-emption rights under Martial Law Regulation 115.
Questions settled- Is the performance of 'Talab' a necessary requirement for a tenant seeking to pre-empt property under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1986 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Dost Muhammad appealed by leave of the Supreme Court against his conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 for possessing an unlicensed .12 bore gun and two cartridges, which had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence in a criminal trial where the prosecution relied exclusively on police witnesses despite available public witnesses, and where issues arose regarding the production and identification of case property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below, holding that the lower courts failed to observe established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated police testimony when independent public witnesses are available but withheld, and that case property must be satisfactorily identified and produced in accordance with evidentiary standards.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for possessing unlicensed arms can be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses when independent public witnesses were available but not examined?
- Is the production and satisfactory identification of case property mandatory in criminal trials involving the recovery of weapons?
- Whether the failure of courts below to properly evaluate evidence in a criminal case warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Dost Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Bibi Rukia and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit regarding a house in Bannu, originally dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on first appeal and second appeal based on a Full Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court in Majid Khan's case concerning the interpretation of section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the pre-emptor respondent died, and an objection was raised that the appeal had abated due to the appellant's delay in bringing legal representatives on record. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal automatically abates under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 upon the death of a party, and the correct interpretation of the exemption provision under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 regarding houses measuring less than one Kanal. The Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide for automatic abatement and that procedural delays can be condoned in the interest of justice, and further held on merits, following its earlier precedents, that the ownership of a share measuring one Kanal or less in a house does not destroy the exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c). The appeal was accordingly allowed and the trial Court's dismissal of the pre-emption suit restored.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court automatically abates upon the failure to bring the legal representatives of a deceased party on record within the prescribed period?
- Does the exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 apply to a house measuring one Kanal or less?
- Does the ownership of a fractional share measuring one Marla in a jointly held house defeat the right of pre-emption under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Dost Muhammad Khan vs Fateh Khan And Other1986 SCMR 1717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a violent incident resulting in six deaths and multiple injuries due to a land dispute. The core legal questions examined the validity of convictions under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the application of the right of private defence of property, and the sustainability of certain acquittals and death sentences. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the accused party had exceeded any available right of private defence, given that the complainant party was unarmed and merely attempting to assert possessory rights, thereby negating any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The Court maintained the conviction of the principal offenders but commuted the death sentences of the co-accused to life imprisonment, except for the accused whose unjustified firing at an uninvolved bystander warranted capital punishment. The principle laid down is that the right of private defence of property is strictly subject to statutory restrictions, and the infliction of disproportionate, wanton harm completely vitiates the plea of self-defence.
Questions settled- Does the mere ploughing of land by an unarmed party give rise to a right of private defence of property resulting in fatal force?
- Can an accused person claim the right of private defence when the harm caused is completely disproportionate to the apprehended threat?
- Whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence leading to the acquittal of certain co-accused warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a death sentence justified for an accused whose firing targeted an uninvolved bystander during a factional clash?
- Dosa vs The State1986 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony, motive arising from a dispute over cattle trespassing, and the recovery of a weapon. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the Wajtakkar evidence lacked corroborative value, and highlighted a potential contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the direction of the gunshot and the complainant's testimony. Furthermore, the petitioner raised a significant contention regarding the Inquest Report, which noted the deceased was found naked and without shoes, suggesting this discrepancy cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence and the motive. The Supreme Court, finding these contentions regarding the motive and the manner of the commission of the crime to be substantial, granted leave to appeal to examine the evidence and the connected features of the case, thereby allowing for a deeper scrutiny of the prosecution's claims.
Questions settled- Does the presence of discrepancies in the Inquest Report regarding the physical state of the deceased cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Can Wajtakkar evidence be considered reliable when it fails to corroborate the primary ocular account provided by the complainant?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the direction of a gunshot and the complainant's testimony warrant a re-examination of the conviction?
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi_ vs Muhammad Aslam And 25 Other1986 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a High Court judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 that had set aside a decision of the Labour Court. The respondents (Railway employees) obtained an order from the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 awarding arrears of overtime wages and compensation. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. The requisite deposit certificate under Section 17(1)(a) was submitted slightly after the memorandum of appeal was lodged because the Authority was on leave when cash payment was tendered. The Labour Court entertained the appeal and remanded the case due to statutory limitation under Section 15. However, the High Court held the appeal incompetent on the ground that the deposit certificate did not accompany the memorandum of appeal at the time of filing.
The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 regulates the time within which the amount must be deposited rather than strictly requiring deposit prior to filing, and depositing the certificate before the decision constituted substantial compliance.
Questions settled- Does Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 require the deposit of the decretal amount to be completed prior to filing an appeal, or is submission of the deposit certificate before decision sufficient compliance?
- Whether filing a deposit certificate shortly after lodging an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 constitutes substantial legal compliance when delay in deposit is caused by the Authority's absence?
- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be entertained against a Labour Court's remand order where adequate legal remedy remains available before the lower tribunal?
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs Presiding Officer, Sind1986 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions concerning claims made and paid to private respondents for mileage allowance and recreation allowance as part of their pay. The core legal questions involve whether the respondents' claim is covered by the terms delayed wages or deducted wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and whether recreation allowance forms part of their monthly salary or pay in their particular grades. The Supreme Court noted that the questions raised are likely to govern a large number of cases and rendered an authoritative decision by granting leave, allowing the petitions, and directing that status quo be maintained regarding payments until the appeals are decided. The key principle established is that matters involving recurring wage disputes of this nature merit an authoritative pronouncement by the Court to govern pending and future cases.
Questions settled- Whether respondents' claim is covered by the terms delayed wages or deducted wages as defined in sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether recreation allowance is a part of monthly salary or pay given to respondents in their particular grades of pay?
- Din Muhammad vs Mirza And Another1986 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the resumption of land allotted to the petitioner under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner was initially allotted land in 1952, which was exchanged for the disputed land in 1961. The Collector subsequently resumed this land, citing its location within a ten-mile radius of a First Class Municipality, a decision upheld through various appellate and revisional forums, including the Board of Revenue and civil courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief based on subsequent government policy letters from 1970 and 1972, which expressed an intention to provide alternative accommodation to persons uprooted from land in exemption belts. The Supreme Court held that while the humanitarian aspect regarding the petitioner's displacement deserved consideration, such relief could only be granted by the Provincial Government authorities, not the Court. Finding no legal error in the High Court's dismissal, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek administrative redress.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant relief based on government policy letters regarding alternative accommodation when no legal error exists in the lower court's order?
- Does the reduction of an exemption belt in a First Class Municipality create a justiciable right for an allottee to claim alternative land?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate forum to challenge the resumption of land by revenue authorities after the exhaustion of statutory remedies?
- Dilshad vs Additional District Judge, Multan And Other1986 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment of a plaint. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for a declaration and injunction regarding land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, and later sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead subsequent vendees and bring on record subsequent payments. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere under writ jurisdiction with the revisional order denying the amendment, particularly in light of the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the revisional order warranted no interference in writ jurisdiction, the trial court could still dispose of the case without prejudice, permit evidence regarding the allegations, and protect the petitioner's interests. The key principle laid down is that where an amendment application is refused due to the doctrine of lis pendens, a party may still be permitted by the trial court to lead evidence on those matters to prevent prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with a revisional order setting aside the amendment of a plaint?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens render the amendment of a plaint to implead subsequent purchasers unnecessary?
- Can a trial court permit a party to lead evidence on matters sought to be introduced via a refused amendment application?
- Dillawar Hussain Shah vs Mst. Razia Sultana1986 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction based on findings that the respondent-landlady required the premises for her personal use and that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's findings, which were based on the evidence recorded in the case, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the arguments presented by the petitioner essentially amounted to a request for the re-appraisal of evidence, which is not permissible in such proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that the findings of the High Court were firmly rooted in the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence unless a misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order?
- Does a finding of fact by the High Court based on evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Dilawar Hussain vs Bashir Ahmad and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for enhancement of sentences filed by Dilawar Hussain against the respondents, who were originally tried for murder and allied offences. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked Dilawar Hussain over a land dispute, and when his father, Hassan Muhammad, intervened to save him, the respondents inflicted fatal injuries upon him. The trial court acquitted some accused, while convicting Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas under section 304 instead of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to imprisonment for life, and convicting Ghulam Mustafa under section 323. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences of Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had misjudged the nature of the offence as culpable homicide rather than murder, but noted that due to the absence of an appeal against acquittal under section 302, it could only address the petition for sentence enhancement. Finding the High Court's reduction of sentences based on extraneous cases untenable, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider the enhancement of sentences for Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas, while dismissing the petition regarding Ghulam Mustafa.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with an acquittal under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when no appeal against acquittal has been filed by the petitioner?
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to eight years' rigorous imprisonment under section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on sentences awarded in dissimilar cases?
- Whether the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of leave to consider the enhancement of sentences reduced by the High Court?
- Dil Murad And Others vs Akbar Shah1986 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of agricultural land. The plaintiff asserted that the deceased predecessor of the petitioners had executed the agreement, received an advance payment, and delivered possession, but his heirs subsequently repudiated the contract. The defendants claimed the agreement was forged. The trial court decreed specific performance to the extent of the deceased's actual two-thirds share, which was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the plaintiff failed to prove execution because no expert evidence was produced to verify the deceased's thumb-impression. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the relevant rules of evidence, execution of a document can be proved by calling the attesting witnesses in whose presence it was signed, and expert evidence is not mandatory where sufficient direct oral evidence exists. The Court affirmed that once the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof, the onus shifted to the defendants to rebut it.
Questions settled- Is the production of handwriting or fingerprint expert evidence mandatory to prove the execution of a disputed document when direct evidence of attesting witnesses is available?
- What are the legally recognized modes of proving the execution of a document under the law of evidence?
- Can a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement be granted to the extent of a vendor's actual share if they contracted to sell the entire property but only owned a partial share?
- Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar And Others vs Lachmandas And Other1986 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had restored a trial court decree in favor of the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration challenging the legality of a demand for construction charges related to a watercourse, which the petitioners argued were to be shared equally between the Government and beneficiary landlords. The petitioners contended that the civil suit was barred by jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as an appeal was competent under Section 203 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879. Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and was premature, as the respondents had only received a notice and could have pursued departmental remedies. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the civil court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration in light of the available departmental remedies and the statutory bars raised by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 bar a civil suit when an appeal is competent under the Sind Land Revenue Code 1879?
- Is a civil suit for declaration premature when the plaintiff has only received a notice and has not exhausted departmental remedies?
- Does the failure to join the Government and the Irrigation Department as parties render a suit bad for non-joinder?
- Darvesh Khan vs Muhammad Sher Khan And Other1986 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the appellant's election to the District Council, Mardan, on the ground that an agreement between candidates to exclude female voters rendered the election void. The core legal question was whether a candidate who voluntarily participated in an agreement to disenfranchise female voters could subsequently invoke the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the election result based on that same disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, having actively contributed to the situation by being a party to the agreement, was disentitled to seek equitable relief. The Court emphasized that a party cannot be allowed to "approbate and reprobate" or take advantage of their own wrong. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to set aside the election was overturned, and the writ was recalled. The principle established is that a petitioner who creates or participates in the illegality complained of is barred from invoking the extraordinary, discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the resulting outcome.
Questions settled- Can a candidate who is a party to an agreement to disenfranchise voters invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the election result?
- Does the principle of 'approbate and reprobate' apply to a petitioner seeking to challenge an election result based on an illegality they participated in?
- Is the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari a matter of right or a matter of judicial discretion?
- Dana And 2 Others vs The State1986 SCMR 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, who were involved in a prior criminal case against the petitioners, could be relied upon to sustain convictions, and whether the First Information Report was the result of deliberations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the injured eye-witnesses were sound. The Court emphasized that the presence of injuries on the witnesses, combined with the circumstances of the occurrence, provided sufficient corroboration for their testimony. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the argument regarding delayed registration of the First Information Report, noting that the timely filing precluded the possibility of false implication through deliberation. The judgment affirms the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if they have a prior conflict with the accused, carries significant weight and does not warrant re-appraisal by the Supreme Court when concurrent findings exist.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be relied upon if they are involved in a prior criminal case against the accused?
- Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence when two lower courts have already reached concurrent findings?
- Does the timely registration of a First Information Report negate claims of false implication due to deliberations?
- Dali And Others vs The Member, Board of Revenue (Revenue) Punjab, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants who had successfully obtained a pre-emption decree for land, were ordered to deposit the purchase price within 45 days, specifically stipulated as "before 10-2-1984." The petitioners deposited the amount on 11 February 1984, arguing that 10 February was a Friday (a public holiday). The trial court, revisional authorities, and the High Court rejected the petitioners' request to correct the date or extend time, with the High Court emphasizing that "before 10 February" meant the deadline was 9 February 1984. The Supreme Court observed that the phrase "within 45 days" was inconsistent with "before 10 February," as "within" typically includes the final day. The Court noted that if the final day of a period is a holiday, the deposit can be made on the next working day. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the petitioners had failed to challenge a subsequent order dismissing the suit, which remained in force. Consequently, granting the petition would be futile as the dismissal order held the field.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'within 45 days' in a court decree include the final day of the period?
- Can a deposit of purchase money be validly made on the next working day if the last day of the prescribed period falls on a public holiday?
- Is the exercise of discretion under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to interference if it has been exercised justly?
- Dada Steel Mills vs Government of Baluchistan1986 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a review petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground of being time-barred. The appellant contended that the review petition was filed within the period of limitation, after excluding the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition as time-barred, particularly given the office's erroneous demand for a certified copy and an application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal was improper. It affirmed that a certified copy of the judgment is not a mandatory requirement for filing a review application in the same court. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the time spent obtaining a copy of the judgment is excludable in computing the limitation period, even if that copy is not filed with the review application. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Is a certified copy of the judgment required to be filed with a review application in the same court?
- Can the time spent obtaining a copy of a judgment be excluded in computing the limitation period for a review application even if the copy is not filed?
- Does an erroneous demand by a court office for a certified copy justify the dismissal of a review petition on the grounds of limitation?
- Dad Muhammad And Others vs Commissioner, Quetta Division And Other1986 SCMR 1625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition against revenue authorities' decisions concerning disputed land in District Loralai. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding the appellants guilty of laches for delaying the filing of the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were actively pursuing alternative remedies through a revision application before the Commissioner and consequently were not guilty of laches. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a party actively pursuing alternative statutory remedies can be held guilty of laches in filing a constitutional petition?
- Does the pendency of a revision application excuse a delay in invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
- D. A. Gill And Others vs Lahore Diocesan Trust Association And Other1986 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a suit filed in the District Court, Karachi, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that a sale deed regarding trust property was illegal and the appointment of a new trustee. The respondents challenged the suit on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and res judicata. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the property value exceeded the court's limit of Rs. 25,000, and also noted the suit was barred by res judicata. The High Court upheld the dismissal, affirming the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper forum. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners did not challenge the findings on jurisdiction but requested leave to appeal to amend the plaint by deleting the prayer regarding the sale deed's invalidity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the petitioners failed to seek amendment before the lower courts and did not challenge the High Court's findings, no grounds existed to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a District Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the valuation of the subject matter exceeds its pecuniary limits?
- Can a party seek leave to amend a plaint before the Supreme Court when such a request was not made before the trial or appellate courts?
- Is a suit barred by res judicata if the same reliefs were claimed in an earlier dismissed suit?
- Federation of Pakistan And Another vs Lt. Col. Fateh Khan1986 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the service and retirement benefits of a retired Army officer re-employed in a civilian capacity within the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The core legal questions examined whether the respondent was on contract re-employment, the effect of the definition of a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether the Service Tribunal was competent to reopen or review its earlier final order. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possessed no power of review to substantially alter or reverse its earlier unappealed decision which had conclusively established the respondent's status as a contract employee governed by specific contractual terms. The Court laid down the principle that a Service Tribunal cannot review and reverse its prior final adjudication, and that contractual employment terms which exclude pensionary rights govern unless specifically authorized otherwise by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is competent to review and reverse its earlier final order?
- Does service rendered under a contract of employment qualify for pension without an express stipulation or authorization?
- Whether a person employed on contract qualifies as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales Tax vs O.K. Motors Company1986 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from identical questions of law previously considered in related proceedings. The core legal question concerns the grant of leave to appeal where identical legal issues have already been admitted for consideration by the court. The court's decision is to grant leave to appeal in these petitions as well, directing that the resulting appeals be heard on the same record alongside the connected appeals, with liberty granted to the parties to file additional documents if necessary. The key principle laid down is that where identical questions of law are raised in multiple petitions and leave has already been granted in precedent matters, leave to appeal should similarly be granted to ensure consistent adjudication on the same record.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the questions of law raised are identical to those in a matter where leave has already been granted?
- Can parties file additional documents in appeals that are ordered to be heard along with connected appeals?
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi vs Printers Combine Ltd.1986 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Commissioner of Income-Tax sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, which had answered two referred questions in the negative and decided the tax reference in favour of the respondent-assessee. The respondent, a private limited company, had filed income returns for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, wherein the Income-Tax Officer rejected the book version of accounts and enhanced the gross profit rate, a decision upheld by the Income-Tax Tribunal. The High Court, upon a reference under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, ruled in favour of the assessee. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the questions decided by the High Court were purely questions of fact and that interference with concurrent factual findings was unwarranted. The Supreme Court found the contentions worthy of consideration and granted leave to appeal to examine whether a question of law arose from the matter.
Questions settled- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act could be invoked?
- Whether there was any material on record for the basis adopted by the learned Tribunal for computing the income of the applicant?
- Whether the questions referred to the High Court were purely questions of fact barring interference against concurrent findings?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs R. G. Chapman.PTCL 1986 CL. 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses civil appeals arising from a common decision of the High Court of Sind regarding whether a non-resident assessee is entitled to earn relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act in spite of the provisions of section 17(1) of the Act. The core legal question examined was whether section 17(1), acting as a charging section, permits the deduction of earned income allowance under section 15-A. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted the statutory provisions, concluding that the earned income allowance under section 15-A is admissible to non-resident assessees as part of the composite scheme of computation of 'total income' under sections 2(15) and 16(1)(a) of the Act, prior to the specific restrictive amendment introduced by the Finance Act of 1965. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a non-resident assessee is entitled to earned income relief under section 15-A of the Income-tax Act notwithstanding section 17(1) of the Act?
- Does the expression 'total income' under the Income-tax Act include deductions and allowances such as earned income relief before applying tax rates?
- Can section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act be construed as impliedly repealing the earned income relief provided under section 15-A?
- Commissioner Of Income Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore. vs Choudhri BrotherPTCL 1986 CL. 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which answered a reference question in the negative concerning the rejection of account books under the Income Tax Act. The respondent, a registered firm dealing in machine-tools, had its returned income modified by the Income Tax Officer after rejection of its book version due to the absence of a stock register and unverifiable sales lists. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner scaled down the addition, and the Income Tax Tribunal upheld it. Upon an application under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court decided the question itself and answered it in the negative. The Supreme Court evaluated the findings of the lower forums, noting inconsistencies in the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the non-maintenance of a stock register and cash sales. Holding that the High Court rightly answered the question based on the relevant circumstances and that no question of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the non-maintenance of a stock register alone is a sufficient ground for the Income Tax Officer to reject the assessee's accounts?
- Can the High Court proceed to decide a reference question itself upon an application under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act following a change in law?
- Whether there was sufficient evidence or material before the Appellate Tribunal to justify the rejection of account books under section 13 of the Income Tax Act?
- Commissioner of Income Tax Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Choudhri Brother1986 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the rejection of an assessee's account books by income tax authorities. The core legal question was whether, given the facts and circumstances, there was sufficient evidence or material for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to conclude that the respondent's account books were liable to be rejected under the proviso of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had rejected the books due to the lack of a stock register and unverifiable sales lists. The High Court, however, answered the question in the negative, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions were inconsistent with its own factual findings regarding the bona fides of the assessee and the nature of the trade practices. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the Tribunal's reasoning was inconsistent and that the mere absence of a stock register did not justify the rejection of accounts where the profit rate was not unreasonably low. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as no question of public importance arose.
Questions settled- Does the mere non-maintenance of a stock register justify the rejection of an assessee's account books under the Income-tax Act?
- Can an Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision be upheld if its findings are inconsistent with the evidence on record?
- Is the subjective opinion of an Income-tax Officer regarding the rejection of accounts final if it is not supported by sufficient material?
- Commissioner of Income Tax (West) K Arachi vs Haji Gulzar And Sons1986 SCMR 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind answering a reference in the affirmative in favor of the assessee. The core legal question was whether a net loss suffered by a registered firm in a speculative business should be distributed among its partners or carried forward to be set off against income from the same business in subsequent years under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that losses sustained by a registered firm in a speculative business cannot be apportioned among its partners under the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, but must instead be carried forward by the firm itself under section 24(2) to be set off against future profits from speculative business. The court laid down the principle that the first proviso to section 24(1)—dealing with speculative business losses—operates as an independent provision and is not controlled by the second proviso, meaning speculative losses are excluded from apportionment among partners and remain with the firm for carry forward.
Questions settled- Whether the loss suffered in a speculative business by a registered firm should be distributed among its partners or carried forward by the firm?
- Does the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, control the first proviso regarding speculative business losses?
- Can a loss sustained in a speculative business by a registered firm be apportioned between the partners of the firm under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Col. (Retd.) Syed Mukhtr Hussain Shah vs Wasim Sajjad And 30 Other1986 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed under the Senate (Elections) Act, 1975, challenging an Election Tribunal's decision that invalidated certain votes and declared respondent No. 1 as the successful candidate for a special Senate seat. The appellant sought interim relief, including the suspension of the Tribunal's orders, an injunction against the Chief Election Commissioner from notifying the respondent, and an order preventing the respondent from taking the oath of office. The Supreme Court noted that the notification of the respondent had already occurred, rendering the request for an injunction against the Election Commission infructuous. Regarding the remaining prayers, the Court declined to intervene on the merits at the interim stage, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the electorate's right to representation in the Senate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for interim relief, save for a limited order preserving the appellant's right to maintain his appeals despite the adverse adjudications against him, ensuring the impugned orders would not prejudice that specific right.
Questions settled- Whether an interim order should be granted to suspend an Election Tribunal's declaration of a successful candidate pending appeal?
- Does the notification of a candidate as a successful member of the Senate render a prayer for an injunction against such notification infructuous?
- To what extent can the Supreme Court intervene in election matters at an interim stage before deciding the merits of an appeal?
- Chiragh Din vs Municipal Committee, Pasrur And Other1986 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition concerning a dispute over cattle market leases granted by two adjacent local councils, namely Zila Council Sialkot and Municipal Committee Pasrur, within close proximity of each other. The core legal question involved the extent of the powers of the Government or its delegatee under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to interfere with the affairs of local councils, specifically regarding the reduction of lease periods and directives on the day of holding the market. The Supreme Court noted that during the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners did not press the grievances regarding commission rates or the reduction of the lease period, and that the issue concerning the specific market day had become moot or remediable through the appropriate District Co-ordination Committee under the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, recording the statement of the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant Co-ordination Committee for resolution.
Questions settled- Whether the Government or its delegatee can interfere with the lease period granted by a local council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can disputes involving the operational days of cattle markets between adjacent local councils be resolved by the District Co-ordination Committee?
- Chief Secretary Government of Sind And Others vs Siraj Ahmad1986 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Sind against the judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent, an Apprenticeship Officer, and ordered his re-instatement with a directive for a fresh enquiry. The core legal question was whether the Authorised Officer could lawfully adopt the summary procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in the face of a specific appellate directive ordering a fresh enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the Authorised Officer was bound to follow the full-fledged inquiry procedure mandated by the appellate authority rather than resorting to a summary procedure. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that authorities must strictly comply with specific procedural directives given by appellate bodies regarding departmental enquiries.
Questions settled- Whether an Authorised Officer can adopt a summary procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when an appellate authority directs a fresh enquiry?
- Does a failure to follow the specific inquiry procedure ordered by an appellate authority render a subsequent dismissal order without lawful authority?
- Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, Lahore And Others vs Ghulam Mehr1986 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the interpretation and application of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1959), which prohibited alienations of land that reduced a holding below the subsistence holding. The core legal questions examined were whether an alienation violating the subsistence holding limit is void in its entirety or only to the extent of the excess, whether paragraph 25 applies to court decrees, and the divisibility of such a transaction. The Supreme Court held that the statutory prohibition renders an offending alienation void only to the extent that it reduces the holding below the subsistence holding, preserving the remaining valid portion through the application of the doctrine of severability. The Court concluded that the Chief Land Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the entire transaction rather than restricting the invalidation strictly to the 8 Kanals and 15 Marlas that violated the statutory threshold. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an alienation that reduces a landholding below the subsistence holding is void in its entirety or only to the extent of the excess?
- Does paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 apply to decrees passed by courts of competent jurisdiction?
- Can the doctrine of severability be applied to a court decree or transaction that partially violates land reform restrictions?
- Chief Administrative Officer vs Muhammad Maqsood And Other1986 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent employee's appeal and granted him seniority in the grade of Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) from an earlier date. The core legal questions involved were whether the respondent's service appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation after the Tribunal had previously dismissed that part of the claim as time-barred, and whether an employee who voluntarily transferred on a written undertaking waiving seniority could claim continuous seniority from his parent department. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by reopening and reversing its own earlier finding that the claim regarding ante-dating promotion was time-barred. The Court further held that the respondent was bound by his written undertaking given upon transfer, wherein he explicitly relinquished any claim to seniority in the new department and agreed to be treated as a deputationist. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a Service Tribunal can reopen and reverse its own earlier finding on the question of limitation?
- Can an employee claim seniority contrary to a written undertaking given at the time of transfer waiving such seniority?
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is competent when the underlying departmental claim is barred by time?
- Chaudhry Phool Muhammad And Others vs Deputy Settlement1986 SCMR 1476(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court partly accepting a writ petition and remanding a property dispute case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, for fresh disposal. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter when an earlier petition and a civil petition for special leave to appeal concerning the same land had been dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the previous writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party rather than on merits, and given the large extent of the property involving a bungalow and open land, further scrutiny was warranted in the interests of justice. The Court declined to interfere with the remand order, noting that the petitioners could raise all available legal defenses before the competent authority. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a case can be remanded for fresh decision when an earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for non-joinder constitute a final determination on the merits to bar subsequent proceedings?
- Is an appellate court inclined to interfere with a High Court's remand order when further scrutiny of a large property dispute is required in the interests of justice?
- Chandoo Alias Chand Muhammad vs The State1986 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his wife and another person. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's plea of grave and sudden provocation was possibly true in the circumstances of the case, thereby attracting the benefit of Exception I to section 300. The Supreme Court held that intrinsic evidence in the prosecution case—including the bolted entrance, the manner of entry by scaling the wall, the immediate infliction of numerous knife injuries in a confined basement space, and the state of the evidence—rendered the defence version plausible and created a reasonable doubt regarding premeditation. The ratio laid down is that where surrounding circumstances and physical features of the crime corroborate the accused's version of discovering his wife in a compromising position, the benefit of doubt regarding grave and sudden provocation must be extended, converting the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation can be accepted when supported by the physical circumstances and intrinsic evidence of the prosecution case?
- Does the infliction of numerous injuries in a confined space preclude the possibility of sudden provocation?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of Exception I to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ch. Sharif Ahmad vs Chiragh Din And Other1986 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute concerning a shop located in Surjit Building, McLeod Road, Lahore, which was auctioned as a big mansion. The petitioner claimed partnership with the second respondent regarding business in the shop, alleging that the second respondent forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock. Earlier, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which reached the High Court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was a statutory tenant of the shop and that the auction purchasers had rented it out to the first respondent unlawfully. The core legal question involved the determination of whether the petitioner held a valid statutory tenancy or right to occupy the shop against the findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked force and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner claiming partnership can establish statutory tenancy over a disputed shop after alleged forcible occupation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere under leave to petition with concurrent factual findings of the High Court regarding property possession?
- Whether a third party can be granted tenancy rights by auction purchasers over a disputed premises?
- Ch. Nazar Muhammad vs Government of Punjab Through The Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore And 11 Other1986 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the dismissal of the appeal would deprive the petitioner of service benefits flowing from the interpretation of Service Rules given by the Court in connected matters. The Court held that the review petition constituted an impermissible attempt at a rehearing of the matter; however, it clarified that in implementing the rules in accordance with the Court's interpretation, any benefit accruing to the petitioner or similarly situated persons cannot ordinarily be denied unless barred by express provision or principle of law. The petition for review was accordingly rejected with the aforesaid observations.
Questions settled- Is a rehearing of a matter permissible in review proceedings?
- Can an employee be denied benefits flowing from the interpretation of Service Rules given by the Court?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal prevent a civil servant from receiving benefits that accrue under the correct interpretation of service rules?
- Ch. Nazar Muhammad And Another vs Government of Punjab And 381986 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal concerning pre-integration officers of the Bahawalpur State Service of Engineers who sought specific seniority and promotion benefits following the establishment of the Province of West Pakistan. The core legal questions involved the continuous force of pre-integration service rules under section 10 and the protective scope of section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, alongside the validity of the Integration Circular dated 25-11-1955 and subsequent seniority lists. The Supreme Court held that pre-integration rules yielded to the Integration Circular, that section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 provides no vested right in promotions or promotion rules, that the appellants failed to establish the existence of substantive vacancies for promotion on the crucial date, and that previous judicial decisions against the appellants operated as a bar. The Court laid down the principle that civil servants possess no vested right in future promotions or mere prospects of promotion, and that pre-integration rules are superseded by integration measures lawfully promulgated under statutory authority.
Questions settled- Whether the pre-integration service rules remained in force in view of section 10 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 after the issuance of the Integration Circular?
- Does section 8(3) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 create any vested right in the prospects of promotion or the rules governing promotion?
- Are seniority lists subject to change on account of new inductions into services and various grades thereof?
- Whether the integration circular of 25-11-1955 is intra vires and capable of superseding previous service rules?
- Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad vs Mst. Shahida Hamid And Other1986 SCMR 455(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a civil dispute involving a challenge to an order passed by a Civil Judge on 31-7-1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether an appeal filed against the Civil Judge's order, which was legally incompetent, could be treated as a revision application. The Supreme Court, by consent of the parties, set aside the prior judgments of the District Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 29-1-1977, and the High Court, dated 28-5-1979. The Court held that the case should be remanded to the District Judge, Sheikhupura, with the specific direction to consider whether the incompetent appeal could be treated as a revision application under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. This decision establishes the principle that appellate courts possess the discretion to convert an incompetent appeal into a revision application where the interests of justice so require, provided the statutory criteria for revision are met, thereby preventing the dismissal of a case solely on technical grounds of misdescription of the remedy sought.
Questions settled- Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a District Judge have the authority to convert an appeal into a revision application to ensure the ends of justice?
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah vs Ch. Abdul Wak1l and Others1986 PLD Supreme Court 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an Election Tribunal's order regarding the validity of ballot papers in a Provincial Assembly election. The core legal question was whether ballot papers lacking an official mark but bearing the Presiding Officer's signature are invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, and whether the election should be declared void due to this irregularity. The Supreme Court held that the ballot papers were valid, interpreting the statutory requirement for exclusion as necessitating the absence of both the official mark and the signature. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in invalidating the votes and ordering a repoll, as the irregularity did not materially affect the election result under Section 70 of the Act. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions for rejecting ballot papers must be construed conjunctively; thus, a ballot paper is only invalid if it lacks both the official mark and the Presiding Officer's signature, and an election is only voidable if the irregularity materially affects the result.
Questions settled- Are ballot papers lacking an official mark but bearing the Presiding Officer's signature invalid under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
- Does the statutory requirement for excluding ballot papers require the absence of both the official mark and the Presiding Officer's signature?
- Under what circumstances can an election be declared void under Section 70 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
- Ch. Mian Khan vs Director General, Telegraph and Telephones, Islamabad1986 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal challenging his compulsory retirement resulting from disciplinary action. The core legal question raised before the court is whether the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to a civil servant before taking adverse disciplinary action vitiates the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the non-supply of the inquiry report raises a substantial question requiring consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings must be provided with the inquiry report prior to the imposition of a penalty, failing which the matter warrants a detailed examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does the non-supply of an inquiry report to a civil servant before taking adverse disciplinary action vitiate the penalty of compulsory retirement?
- Is a civil servant entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report prior to the final orders in disciplinary proceedings?