Latest Judgments

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

• National Bank of Pakistan And Others National Bank of Pakistan And Others vs Muhammad Abdullah Khan Shah Rukh1985 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah And Another vs The State1985 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10
  criminal appealmurdersuppression of injuriescounter-versionself-defenseappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the convictions of two brothers—one under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and the other under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing grievous hurt—arising from a sudden dispute over a boundary wall. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses who suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused, and the plausibility of the appellant's counter-version of private defense. The Supreme Court held that the suppression of injuries on the accused by all eyewitnesses, coupled with the corroboration of the counter-version through the recovery of weapons from the complainant side, rendered the prosecution's narrative of a one-sided attack highly doubtful and lent credence to the defense plea. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting both appellants. The key principle laid down is that the concealment of injuries sustained by an accused person during the occurrence casts serious doubt on the truthfulness of eyewitnesses and warrants the acceptance of a plausible counter-version of self-defense.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution witnesses suppressing the injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence?
  • Does the recovery of weapons from the complainant side in connection with a counter-version lend credence to the defense plea?
  • Whether the failure of eyewitnesses to explain injuries on the person of the accused renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the origin of the fight is disputed and the prosecution conceals material aspects of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin Khan vs Rafiquddin And Other1985 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-09
  review petitionsettlement of propertylachesdisplaced personstransfer of propertyclaimant vs non-claimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged a Supreme Court judgment that had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the transfer of residential property in Lahore. The petitioner, a non-claimant, had sought the transfer of property in his possession, while the respondents, who were claimant displaced persons, were granted the transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court erred in its previous judgment by proceeding without certain records and whether the Settlement authorities had correctly identified the property in dispute. The Court held that the review petition lacked merit, noting that the petitioner had failed to object to the record status during the original appeal and that the identity of the property had been resolved by the Settlement authorities through spot inspection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondents, as claimants, were rightly preferred over the non-claimant petitioner, and that the petitioner was barred by laches due to his significant delay in challenging the transfer order. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek review based on procedural grievances regarding the record that were not raised during the original hearing, and that long, unexplained delays in litigation (laches) preclude relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek review of a judgment based on procedural objections regarding the record that were not raised during the original appeal hearing?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in challenging a property transfer order constitute laches sufficient to deny relief?
  • Are claimant displaced persons entitled to preference over non-claimant occupants in the transfer of settlement property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali Raza vs Syed Zaffar Ali Shah and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08
  ejectmentdefault in rentevacuee propertyleave to appealtenant defaulturban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal in an ejectment matter. The dispute concerns commercial property originally tenanted by the petitioner's predecessor, Hazrat Gul, who withheld rent following a notice from the Evacuee Trust Board designating the property as evacuee trust property. After litigation, the Custodian of Evacuee Property ultimately declared the property to be the private property of the respondents-landlords. Subsequently, the landlords filed an ejectment application for default in rent. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and both the District Judge and the High Court dismissed the tenant's appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the ejectment order violated the second proviso to section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, as he admitted liability on the first date of hearing, and argued that he was not a willful defaulter given the cloud on the respondents' title. The Supreme Court found the arguments raised worthy of consideration and granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application must be rejected under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, when the tenant admits liability to pay rent on the first date of hearing and has not previously defaulted?
  • Can a tenant be considered a willful defaulter of rent when payment was withheld due to rival claims and notices from the Custodian Department regarding the property's title?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Hussain And Another vs Ilam Din And Other1985 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13
  occupancy tenantsconstitutional petitiontransfer of propertylimitationagricultural landleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order of the Board of Revenue and ruling in favor of erstwhile occupancy tenants. The core legal question concerns whether occupancy tenants extinguished under the Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1952, became owners proportionate to their share of the produce without a strict time limitation, and whether constitutional courts could determine shares or prejudice subsequent civil claims regarding property transfers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that operation of law made the tenants owners without limitation, but clarified that observations regarding the protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 should not prejudice pending or future civil court adjudications. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused with this clarification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1952 become owners proportionate to their share of the produce without a time limitation?
  • Can observations made by a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction regarding property transfer protection prejudice independent civil court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Muhammad vs The State1985 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-09
  dying declarationocular evidenceabscondenceinterested witnessmurder convictiondeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliance on a dying declaration and the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration, the impact of the prosecution's failure to produce a specific witness mentioned in the dying declaration, and the weight of the petitioner's abscondence and alleged lack of motive. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the prosecution is not required to produce every potential witness if the evidence presented is sufficient, and that the non-production of one witness does not invalidate a dying declaration attested by another. Furthermore, the Court established that where credible ocular evidence exists, the absence of a proven motive is immaterial to the conviction. The Court also reiterated that it is not its function to re-evaluate evidence merely to reach a different conclusion when lower courts have properly considered the facts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution legally bound to produce every witness mentioned in a dying declaration to prove the guilt of the accused?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive for a crime render a conviction based on credible ocular evidence and abscondence unsustainable?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-evaluate evidence to reach a different conclusion when the lower courts have already considered and rejected the arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Ud Din vs Rent Controller And Other1985 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14
  rent restrictionevacuee propertytransfer documentsnotice under section 30remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed a landlord's writ petition in a rent restriction case and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision. The core legal question concerned whether a change in the landlord's transfer documents for evacuee property necessitated the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view—that the change in documents did not affect the respondent's position as landlord and that the earlier notice enured for his benefit—was unexceptionable. However, taking note of subsequent developments regarding a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order affecting the transfer status of the property, the Court dismissed the petition while observing that the parties could raise pleas regarding subsequent changes before the Rent Controller where the proceedings remained pending. The key principle laid down is that a change in transfer documents does not necessarily vitiate a prior Section 30 notice, and subsequent factual changes affecting property title may be urged before the original forum upon remand.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in a landlord's transfer documents of evacuee property necessitate a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can subsequent administrative orders affecting property transfer status be raised before the Rent Controller upon remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Najibullah vs Mst. Khurshid Begum1985 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-26
  interim orderadjournmentprosecution of petitionvacation of stayadvocate-on-record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where an interim order had previously been granted in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment due to illness. The Court called upon the Advocate-on-Record to argue the case in the absence of the lead counsel, but the Advocate-on-Record expressed an inability to do so. Finding no valid justification for this inability and noting that an adjournment would cause a significant delay of nearly one month due to the conclusion of the current court session, the Court declined to extend the interim relief. The Court held that where an interim order operates to the prejudice of a respondent, it cannot be maintained indefinitely when the petitioner fails to prosecute the matter or provide adequate representation. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim order dated 16-7-1984 and adjourned the hearing to a date in office, emphasizing that the interest of justice requires the prompt resolution of matters where interim relief is sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim order be maintained when the petitioner fails to provide representation to argue the case?
  • Is an adjournment justified when it would cause a significant delay in the court's schedule?
  • Does the court have the authority to vacate an interim order if the petitioner's counsel is unavailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ul Haq Khan And Others vs The State1985 SC M R510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealprivate defenceappreciation of evidencereasonable doubtmedical evidencemurderattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a fatal altercation between two inimical families. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of the defence version and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful by the significant injuries sustained by one of the appellants, which contradicted the narrative of a one-sided attack. The Court observed that the lower courts misread the medical evidence by dismissing the accused's sharp-edged injuries as accidental. Relying on the principle established in Safdar Ali v. Crown, the Court held that if the defence version is plausible, it creates a reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, finding that the appellants had not exceeded the right of private defence, and ordered their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plausible defence version create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to explain the injuries sustained by the accused?
  • What is the effect of a delayed First Information Report in a case of alleged one-sided aggression?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad vs The Principal/Chairman, Admission Board, K.E.1985 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-16
  writ jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefclean hands doctrinemisrepresentationmedical college admissionsuppression of factsprovisional admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil appeals filed by brothers challenging the cancellation of their provisional admissions to the M.B.,B.S. program at King Edward Medical College, Lahore. The appellants had previously passed the Intermediate Examination from the Sargodha Board but subsequently appeared for the same examination as fresh candidates under the Rawalpindi Board without disclosing their prior qualification, despite a mandatory requirement to do so in their permission forms. Upon applying for medical college admission, they submitted affidavits that failed to disclose these additional attempts. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to relief against the cancellation of their admissions, given their conduct. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had purposely suppressed material facts in their affidavits to both the examination board and the medical college. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of their writ petitions, holding that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and should not be exercised in favour of individuals who do not approach the court with clean hands, particularly when they have secured or attempted to secure benefits through misrepresentation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction can be exercised in favour of a petitioner who has obtained a benefit through misrepresentation?
  • Does the suppression of material facts in an affidavit submitted for educational admission disentitle a candidate to relief in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a candidate who conceals prior examination attempts in admission forms entitled to challenge the cancellation of their provisional admission?
  Read full judgment →
• N.W.F.P. Through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition And Others vs Haji1985 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-16
  land acquisitionmarket value determinationcompensation enhancementcompulsory acquisitioncomparable salespotential value
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the determination of market value for land acquired for the construction of Ayub Medical College. The core legal question involved the appropriate method for calculating compensation for acquired land, specifically whether sales in adjacent areas formerly part of the same village should be considered when determining market value. The Supreme Court held that when determining the market value of acquired land, it is appropriate to consider sale transactions from neighboring areas that were historically part of the same village, as these reflect the true market potential and value of the land at the time of the acquisition notification. The Court found that the lower courts had erred by restricting their consideration solely to transactions within the newly designated village boundaries. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation rate from Rs. 20,000 per Kanal to Rs. 25,000 per Kanal, acknowledging the upward trend in land prices and the relevance of comparable transactions in the historically unified village area.

  Questions settled

  • Can sale transactions from adjacent areas that were historically part of the same village be considered when determining the market value of acquired land?
  • Does the potential use of land for building purposes necessitate ignoring its original soil classification in compensation assessments?
  • Is it appropriate to consider the upward trend in land prices between the date of the acquisition notification and the announcement of the award when fixing compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Swat Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry OfPTCL 1985 (CL.) 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs AndPTCL 1985 (CL) 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08
  customs tariffsales taxclassification of goodsfood preparationodoriferous substancesconcentrates
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the classification of imported concentrates used in the manufacture of the beverage R.C. Cola for sales tax purposes under the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The core legal question is whether the imported concentrates fall under head 21.07 as food preparations and concentrated extracts, or under head 33.04 as mixtures of odoriferous substances used as raw materials. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, holding that the concentrates constitute the chief ingredients of the beverage rather than mere odoriferous substances intended to impart a pleasant smell, and are thus correctly classifiable under head 21.07. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a modification permitting the petitioner to substitute a bank guarantee with a cash payment of the additional sales tax within a stipulated period of one month.

  Questions settled

  • Whether imported beverage concentrates fall under head 21.07 or head 33.04 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Do beverage concentrates containing cola extracts, phosphoric acid, and caffeine qualify as mixtures of odoriferous substances under head 33.04?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abdul Ghaffar I. Davera vs The Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28
  customs dutyshort levyunder-valuationshow-cause noticelimitation periodleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969, where the petitioner imported a consignment of cutch block (Katha) from India, which was subsequently alleged by the customs authorities to have been short-levied due to under-valuation. The Deputy Collector of Customs ordered the payment of a short levy and imposed a personal penalty, which was later modified on appeal by the Director of Vigilance Wing, upholding the short levy but setting aside the penalty. The Central Board of Revenue dismissed the subsequent revision, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a reliable basis existed for the department to reject the petitioner's documentary evidence regarding the price, and whether the finding that the value was not deflated with mala fide intention brought the case within the four-month limitation period under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering the notice issued after nearly one year illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether any reliable basis existed with the respondent department to insist on a higher valuation and ignore the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner?
  • Whether the absence of deliberate deflation or mala fide intention brings the case within the purview of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering a notice issued after four months illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzammal Din And Another vs Nur Hussain And Other1985 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03
  criminal petitionmurderappreciation of evidencelesser sentencemotiveconvictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the conviction of the petitioners under sections 302/34, 307/34, and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their sentence of death to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding a fatal altercation and whether the failure to establish the alleged motive warranted interference with the conviction or the reduced sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no ground existed for interfering with the judgment. The key principle laid down is that where the immediate cause or motive for an attack is shrouded in mystery or not fully established, while the core ocular testimony establishing guilt remains reliable, the appellate court may properly maintain the conviction while extending the benefit of a lesser sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish the alleged motive warrants setting aside a conviction for murder?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of death to life imprisonment when the immediate cause of the incident is shrouded in mystery?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs Allah Yar Khan1985 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-24
  civil revisionpossession of propertysale deednew pleaappellate stagedismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of a disputed house, originally instituted by the respondent, Allah Yar Khan, based on a 1932 sale deed. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in the respondent's favor. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the sale deed by invoking Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, arguing that the document could not confer title. The Supreme Court declined to entertain this legal contention, noting that it had not been raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that a new legal argument, not previously agitated in the lower forum, could not be introduced at the appellate stage. Finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's dismissal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the appellate decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new legal contention before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
  • Does a failure to raise a legal argument in the High Court preclude its consideration in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mussaddiq Hussain Shah And Another vs The State1985 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq And Others vs Rabian Bibi And Other1985 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-01
  partition suitcompromise decreeextension of timeleave to appealcontractual performanceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, defendants in a partition suit, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their regular second appeal. The dispute arose from a compromise decree in the first appellate court, where the petitioners were granted the right to acquire the plaintiff-respondent's one-sixth share of a property upon payment of twenty-two thousand rupees by a specified date. Upon failing to make the payment by the deadline, the petitioners applied for an extension, which the plaintiff-respondent refused. The first appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a court has the authority to unilaterally extend a time limit established by a compromise agreement between parties. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that where parties agree to a specific timeframe for the performance of a duty within a compromise, that timeframe cannot be altered or extended without the mutual consent of the parties involved. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts correctly applied the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court unilaterally extend a time limit for performance established by a compromise agreement between parties?
  • Is the consent of all parties required to alter a timeframe set in a compromise decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Makhan vs Rao Iftikhar Ahmad And Other1985 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09
  leave to appealelection petitionlimitation periodtime-barredElection Tribunalconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition, declared an Election Tribunal's decision without lawful authority, and dismissed the petitioner's election petition as time-barred. The dispute arose from local council elections where the respondent was notified as the returned candidate on 5 October 1983, and the petitioner filed an election petition on 15 November 1983. The Election Tribunal initially overruled the limitation objection, but the High Court held that the thirty-day limitation period under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 ran strictly from the notification date and Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal itself was not properly constituted until 1 November 1983 due to administrative defects in earlier notifications. The Supreme Court held that the question raised was one of general application and public importance—specifically whether limitation runs when no forum is available—and accordingly granted leave to appeal for an authoritative pronouncement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period of limitation for filing an election petition start to run when the Election Tribunal has not yet been established or made available?
  • Can Section 5 of the Limitation Act be invoked to condone delay in filing an election petition where the relevant rules do not make it applicable?
  • Whether an election petition filed beyond thirty days from the notification of the returned candidate is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-10
  murderdeath sentenceright of private defencesudden fightmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentences of the appellants for a double murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involved whether the evidence disclosed a case for the exercise of the right of private defence or whether the incident constituted a sudden fight falling within Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was untenable as the accused sustained no incised injuries while inflicting several on the deceased, and Exception IV was inapplicable due to the cruel manner of the attack. However, considering the young age of one of the appellants and the possibility of him acting under the influence of elders, his death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life with an enhanced fine. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of sudden fight or self-defence cannot be invoked where the nature of injuries and the manner of the assault negate such pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Does a physical altercation arising from a minor dispute constitute a sudden fight under Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the attack is carried out in a cruel manner?
  • Can the plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused persons suffer no incised wounds but inflict multiple incised injuries on the deceased?
  • Is the younger age of an accused and the possibility of acting under the influence of elders a ground for mitigating a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Musharaf Khan vs The State1985 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-13
  bail cancellationcriminal revisionlimitation periodjudicial discretionleave to appealmurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail after a significant delay of over six months, where the petitioner argued that such an application, treated as a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was time-barred according to the established practice of the High Court requiring filing within 90 days. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the High Court's interference with the Sessions Judge's valid exercise of discretion in granting bail. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the limitation period and the propriety of the High Court's interference with the lower court's discretion required further consideration. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to remain on bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to a limitation period when treated as a revision under Section 439?
  • Can the High Court cancel bail granted by a Sessions Judge if the application for cancellation is filed after an inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussainand Others vs Muhammad Shafi And Another1985 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-14
  pre-emption suitvoid sale deedSpecific Relief Actcivil appealleave to appealjudicial decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a pre-emption suit where the underlying sale deed was subsequently declared void by a competent court. The petitioners sold land to Respondent No. 2, which Respondent No. 1 sought to pre-empt. During the pendency of the pre-emption suit, the petitioners obtained a decree under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 declaring the original sale deed void. Despite this decree being brought to the attention of the court hearing the pre-emption suit, that court proceeded to decree the pre-emption suit in favour of the pre-emptor. The District Judge and the Lahore High Court upheld the pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily addressing whether a pre-emption suit can survive when the foundational sale deed has been judicially declared void. The Court's holding implies that once a sale deed is declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the basis for a pre-emption suit ceases to exist, rendering subsequent proceedings in the pre-emption suit legally misconceived and unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit proceed if the underlying sale deed has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a decree declaring a sale deed void under the Specific Relief Act 1877 nullify the basis for a pending pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmad And Another vs Muhammad Ali And Another1985 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-01
  specific performanceagreement to sellpermanent transfer deedleave to appealre-appraisal of evidencepleadings and issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the first appellate court's judgment decreeing the respondent's suit for specific performance and possession of a half share in a disputed shop. The core legal question concerned whether an agreement to sell executed prior to the issuance of a permanent transfer deed was enforceable, and whether a notice making time the essence of the contract could be raised without prior pleadings or issues. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the non-establishment of the service of notice and the enforceability of the agreement did not warrant interference, especially as no plea had been taken in the written statement nor any issue framed, and evidence could not be re-appraised without the relevant record. The key principle laid down is that a new plea involving the re-appraisal of evidence or matters not pleaded in the written statement and unrepresented by specific issues cannot be entertained at the leave stage before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell entered into before the issuance of a permanent transfer deed is specifically enforceable?
  • Can a party raise a plea regarding a notice making time the essence of the contract without having pleaded it in the written statement or framed an issue thereon?
  • Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal when the copy of the evidence has not been furnished?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs The State1985 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10
  leave to appealforgeryconfessionshow-cause noticewakf properties
  Summary & questions settled

  Munawar Ali petitioned for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his appeal against conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the validity of his conviction for forgery after proceedings originated from an application under the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and subsequent action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Additional District and Sessions Judge rightly proceeded under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice amounted to a clear admission of guilt. The key principle laid down is that where a court initiates inquiry into forgery committed in relation to proceedings before it, a conviction based on an unequivocal admission in the reply to the show-cause notice is legally sustainable and warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional District and Sessions Judge can initiate proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during proceedings arising from an application under the Punjab Wakf Properties Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a reply to a show-cause notice under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amounting to an admission of guilt sustain a conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction for forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Khan vs Farhat Ullah And Other1985 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  leave to appealproperty transfersettlement authoritiesresumption of propertyconstitutional petitionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The property was originally transferred to respondent No.1 in 1960. The petitioner claimed to have filed a form for its transfer in 1966. Although the transfer to respondent No.1 was temporarily cancelled and the property resumed in 1968, the cancellation was subsequently revoked and the property restored to respondent No.1. The petitioner contended that a vested interest had accrued to him upon resumption and that his pending application ought to have been considered. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether a subsequent applicant acquires a preferential claim or vested right when a prior transfer and resumption order is set aside by settlement authorities. The Court held that the resumption was not irrevocable, settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to restore the property to the original transferee, and the petitioner had no preferential claim. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that the setting aside of a property resumption revives the original transfer without creating independent vested rights for subsequent applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent applicant acquire a vested interest in a property when an earlier transfer order is cancelled and later restored?
  • Do settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to set aside a property resumption and restore it to the original transferee?
  • Does a subsequent claimant have a preferential right over an original transferee when a resumption order is revoked?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz H.Ussain Shah vs The State1985 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18
  criminal appealleave to appealfabrication of recordpublic servantconvictionrigorous imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mumtaz Hussain Shah against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his criminal appeal and upheld his conviction. The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, was accused alongside a contractor of fabricating official records regarding repair work performed on 49 tube wells in the Mianwali Section. The trial court had convicted both individuals for offences under Section 218 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing each to six months of rigorous imprisonment. While the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused contractor, it maintained the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the petitioner was sustainable given the evidence presented and the acquittal of his co-accused. Upon reviewing the impugned judgment and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's guilt was clearly established by the evidence. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the case did not warrant interference with the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in a case of fabrication of records?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court judgment if the guilt of the accused is clearly established by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Alias Kundal vs The State1985 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01
  criminal appealacquittalcomplete justiceocular testimonyco-accusedbenefit of doubtjoint trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Mumtaz alias Kundal, who was tried alongside six co-accused for the murder of two individuals. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 148, 302, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to various terms of imprisonment. While the co-accused appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court and were subsequently acquitted on the grounds that the ocular testimony regarding their identity and participation was unreliable and contradictory to medical evidence, the appellant did not initially seek leave to appeal and remained incarcerated. The core legal question before the Court was whether the benefit of acquittal granted to co-accused persons, whose cases were based on the same unreliable evidence, should be extended to a non-appealing convict to ensure complete justice. The Supreme Court held that since the evidence against all accused was identical and had been found to be in a state of serious doubt, the appellant was entitled to the same relief. The Court laid down the principle that in the interest of complete justice, the benefit of an acquittal in a joint criminal trial should be extended to a non-appealing co-accused when the evidence against them is identical to that of the acquitted co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of an acquittal granted to co-accused persons be extended to a non-appealing convict in a joint criminal trial?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to acquit a non-appealing convict when the evidence against them is identical to that of acquitted co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Division, Multan And Others vs Sh. Abdul Hamid1985 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-25
  non-prosecutionrestoration of appealsecurity depositgovernment functionariesdismissal of appealSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to deposit security. The appellant, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, had been issued a show-cause notice under the Supreme Court Rules for failing to deposit the required security. Upon the appellant's failure to appear, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant subsequently sought restoration, initially citing travel delays as the reason for non-appearance. However, the core legal question presented was whether the requirement to deposit security applies to appeals filed by Government functionaries in their official capacity. The Court held that the demand for security was unwarranted because Government functionaries are exempt from such deposits when acting in their official capacity. Consequently, the dismissal order was withdrawn, the appeal was restored to its original number, and the Court directed that the matter proceed without the requirement of security. The judgment establishes that the failure to comply with an invalid demand for security cannot serve as a valid ground for dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Are Government functionaries required to deposit security when filing appeals in their official capacity?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to deposit security when such security is not legally required?
  • Does the failure to deposit security by a Government functionary constitute a valid ground for dismissal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulla Syed Ali vs Mullah Asmi1985 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-07
  right of appealprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemex parte orderadjournmentsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing a second appeal, which in turn confirmed the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Kelat Division, against an ex parte order of the Qazi of Pasni. The core legal question was whether the Majlis-e-Shoora acted legally and in accordance with natural justice in dismissing the appellant's appeal on an adjourned date without proper notice or adequate opportunity of hearing, particularly when the appellant's counsel sought an adjournment due to transportation constraints. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Majlis-e-Shoora violated the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Court laid down the principle that the right of appeal granted by a statute is a substantial right, and the maxim audi alteram partem applies equally to appellate proceedings, implying that an appellant must be given a proper right of being heard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of natural justice and the maxim audi alteram partem apply to appellate proceedings before a tribunal?
  • Does a statutory right of appeal implicitly include the right of being heard?
  • Can an appellate tribunal dismiss an appeal on an adjourned date without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant or their counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hussain And Another vs The State1985 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionrecovery of dead bodycommutation of death sentencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants under sections 302/34, 404, and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy, misappropriation of property, and causing disappearance of evidence, which resulted in sentences including death and imprisonment for life, subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession, the reliability of last-seen evidence, the credibility of recovery witnesses, and the propriety of the death sentence on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that even excluding the extra-judicial confession, the remaining circumstantial evidence—including the discovery of the dead body pointed out from the appellants' premises and the recovery of stolen ornaments—sufficiently established guilt. However, due to the lack of direct evidence showing who fired the fatal shot and the possibility of youthful influence by the acquitted father, the court commuted the death sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other convictions and sentences with modifications regarding concurrent running and statutory benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on circumstantial evidence consisting of last-seen testimony and incriminating recoveries when an extra-judicial confession is excluded from consideration?
  • Does the absence of direct evidence regarding who fired the fatal shot warrant the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Are recoveries invalid solely because the attesting witnesses are related to the complainant, in the absence of established enmity or hostility?
  • Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted to convicts whose sentences of imprisonment are modified on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain vs The State1985 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-22
  murdercapital chargebenefit of doubtfirst information reportocular testimonycriminal appealrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and his sentence of death, which were maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the First Information Report, discrepancies regarding the identity and number of accused persons, the naturalness of ocular witnesses, and the safety of basing a capital conviction on uncorroborated or doubtful evidence. The Supreme Court held that serious discrepancies between the First Information Report and the statements of eye-witnesses, coupled with unnatural witness testimony, self-contradictory motive, and doubtful recoveries, created reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that major discrepancies in naming accused persons in the First Information Report and subsequent improvements by witnesses cannot be ignored, and where the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy in the names and number of accused persons in the First Information Report and the ocular testimony cast doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene is doubtful and unnatural?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to an accused when the prosecution evidence suffers from serious gaps, contradictions, and unreliable corroboratory material?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain And Others vs Muhammad Ahsan1985 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-09
  pre-emptioncustom of pre-emptionleave to appealconcurrent findings of factprevious judicial precedentproperty location
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, vendee defendants of a house in Shujaabad, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents' pre-emption suit. The core legal question centered on whether a previous 1972 civil court judgment was relevant and legally sufficient to prove the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the locality prior to or at the time of the enforcement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act in 1913, and whether the property in dispute was correctly identified as being in the same locality. The Supreme Court held that the 1972 judgment was indeed a relevant piece of evidence to establish the pre-1913 custom and that the lower appellate court had correctly traced and identified the property's location despite a change in ward numbers. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, and left the matter of refunding deposited sums to the executing Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a previous judicial decision of 1972 is a relevant piece of evidence for determining the existence of a custom of pre-emption in 1913?
  • Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding the location of a property and ward number changes be assailed in second appeal without material showing incorrectness?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts upholding a right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Alias Mana vs The State1985 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09
  murder convictionocular testimonyrecovery of weaponcriminal petitionappreciation of evidenceSection 382-B CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the murder of Sher Muhammad. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court, which relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses and the recovery of incriminating evidence, including a blood-stained shirt and the weapon of offense, to establish guilt. The motive was attributed to a suspected illicit liaison between the deceased and the petitioner's sister. The High Court upheld the conviction, though it modified the sentence regarding the default of fine payment and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contention of innocence. The Court held that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses, corroborated by physical recoveries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and found no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon and clothing provide sufficient corroboration for eyewitness testimony in a murder case?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained when the lower courts have concurrently relied on natural witnesses and physical evidence?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict sentenced for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs The State1985 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-06
  murderdying declarationmistaken identityappreciation of evidenceleave to appealcriminal liabilitymedical negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the identity of the assailant was established despite claims of mistaken identity, whether the dying declaration was reliable or procured by prompting, and whether the non-availability of blood for transfusion mitigated the offence to a lesser charge. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petitioner was specifically identified by his alias in the dying declaration, which distinguished him from other individuals of the same name. The Court affirmed that the lack of immediate blood transfusion did not mitigate the offence of murder, citing Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court found no error in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence and refused leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-availability of blood for transfusion mitigate the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a dying declaration be considered reliable when the assailant is identified by a specific alias?
  • Does the absence of enmity between the accused and the victim preclude a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Alaf Din1985 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentdisplaced personsnotice under section 30remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant regarding a transferred property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the notice under section 30 of the Act was valid, whether the respondent became the landlord, and whether the High Court was justified in ordering ejectment on the ground that the tenant had wrongfully denied the tenancy or should have remanded the case for an independent conclusion. The Supreme Court held that the authorities relied upon by the High Court regarding persistent denial of landlord's title were inapplicable to the facts, as the tenant had actually acknowledged the transfer and tendered rent, albeit at the previous rate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on merits, laying down that where a tenant does not contumaciously deny the landlord's title and attempts to tender rent, the matter of default and validity of notice must be examined on its specific facts rather than summarily ordering ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant who tenders rent at a previous rate after receiving a notice under section 30 can be said to have contumaciously denied the landlord's title?
  • Did the High Court err in directing ejectment without properly evaluating whether the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was valid?
  • Whether the case should be remanded to the High Court for decision on merits when the first appellate court's findings on tender of rent were not duly considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Khalifa Asghar Hussain1985 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-02
  review petitionejectmenttenantcommercial premisesdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed by a tenant seeking review of an order of the Supreme Court which had dismissed his petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the effect of an earlier remand ordered by the High Court in a constitutional petition and its subsequent setting aside by the Supreme Court, along with the scope and meaning of the expression 'possession' under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Additionally, a belated plea regarding the nullity of a transfer order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was raised. The Court held that the review petition merely sought a rehearing of previously examined points without proper grounds, and that a factual mistake alleged by the petitioner had no bearing on the legal questions. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that no further time to vacate the commercial premises was warranted beyond the three months already granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be entertained for the rehearing of points already examined at length without proper grounds or reasons?
  • What is the scope and meaning of the expression 'possession' used in section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Whether an order of transfer passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can be raised as a nullity for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf And Others vs Settlement Commissioner Land, Multan Division, Multan And Other1985 SCMR 1669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-19
  Land SettlementExcess LandAllotment CancellationDepartmental ErrorRight of ChoiceRehabilitation Settlement SchemeDisplaced Persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals against the cancellation of excess land allotted to the appellants, which was necessitated by a departmental calculation error regarding Produce Index Units. The core legal question is whether allottees, whose excess land is being resumed due to administrative error rather than fraud or misrepresentation, possess a right to exercise a choice regarding which specific parcels of land they must surrender. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner. The Court held that while the authorities are entitled to resume excess land, the allottees should be afforded an opportunity to choose the area to be surrendered, particularly where they have developed the land through significant expense and labor. The key principle laid down is that the denial of such a choice in cases of non-fraudulent error is inequitable and punitive. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellants be permitted to exercise their choice, subject to the condition that the surrendered land must, as far as possible, constitute a compact block.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allottee have a right to choose which land to surrender when excess land is cancelled due to a departmental error?
  • Is the cancellation of excess land due to departmental error considered a punitive measure if the allottee is denied the right to choose the surrendered area?
  • Must the surrender of excess land by an allottee be made in a compact block?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State1985 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  juvenile justicedetermination of agemedical certificatebirth certificateossification testminority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court which directed that the accused, charged with murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, be tried under the Sind Children Act 1955. The trial court had rejected the accused's claim of minority by preferring a birth certificate issued by the Karachi Municipal Corporation over conflicting school certificates and a medical report based on an ossification test. The High Court reversed this, preferring the medical certificate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that conflicting certificates of age, including medical certificates, school leaving certificates, and municipal birth registers, do not by themselves constitute conclusive legal evidence. The Court held that in the face of such conflicting documentary evidence, the trial court must record proper evidence produced by the parties to determine the accused's age. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the orders of both the trial court and the High Court, and remanded the matter for a fresh determination of the accused's age based on recorded evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflicting certificates of age, such as medical certificates, school certificates, and municipal birth registers, constitute conclusive legal evidence on their own?
  • How should a trial court resolve conflicting documentary evidence regarding the age of an accused claiming juvenile status?
  • Is a medical certificate based on an ossification test automatically preferred over a municipal birth certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis Malik vs District Judge, Lahore And Other1985 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17
  tenant evictionbona fide personal needdefault in rentconstitutional jurisdictionalternative accommodationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition challenging his eviction from commercial premises. The landlady sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide personal need, default in rent payment, damage, and nuisance, along with a subsequent default in depositing monthly rent as directed by the Controller. The Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction plea, but the District Judge ordered eviction upon finding the personal need and default proved. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the appellate authority misapplied the law regarding personal need since vacant premises were available in the building. The Supreme Court held that the question of suitability of alternative accommodation is one of fact which must be established by evidence or pleadings, and the petitioner failed to show that the available premises were equally suitable. Finding no misdirection of law, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, granting the petitioner a two-month period to surrender possession upon conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the availability of other premises disentitles a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal need without establishing the unsuitability of such alternative premises?
  • Does the misapplication of law by an appellate authority vitiate a finding of fact regarding personal need in rent matters?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact on personal need without a proven misdirection of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1985 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-08-13
  pre-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionFirst Information Reportpetition for special leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report did not disclose a case against him and that only a lalkara was attributed to him. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, attracting the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that upon perusal of the First Information Report, allegations clearly indicated that the petitioner had fired a shot at the scene, thereby prima facie establishing common intention. The key principle laid down is that where the First Information Report discloses overt acts and prima facie application of common intention under section 34, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused when the First Information Report prima facie discloses the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a lalkara coupled with an allegation of firing a shot constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Messrs National Food Processing Industries1985 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertypermanent transfer deedconstitutional petitionbaluchistan high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property in Quetta originally consisting of a dilapidated one-room house. The appellant applied for and obtained the transfer of the property and a Permanent Transfer Deed under paragraph 2(i.e) of Scheme No. 1 framed under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The first respondent, whose earlier transfer application had been rejected, successfully challenged the transfer through a constitutional petition in the Baluchistan High Court, which held that the appellant was not qualified for transfer as he had neither made permanent constructions by the crucial date nor exercised the option within the prescribed period. Upon grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the High Court misread the relevant provisions of the Scheme. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that permanent construction prior to the promulgation of the Scheme and exercise of the option within the prescribed deadline were mandatory conditions precedent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an occupant is entitled to the transfer of an evacuee property under Scheme No. 1 without having made permanent constructions by the crucial date?
  • Can an option to retain a building site under paragraph 2(i.e) of Scheme No. 1 be exercised after the expiry of the prescribed period?
  • Does a party whose transfer application was previously refused have locus standi to challenge the illegal transfer of evacuee property to another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Dr. Badshah Begum And Other1985 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22
  allotment of landconfiscation of propertySpecial Military CourtSettlement and Rehabilitation Commissionerbona fide purchaserconstitutional jurisdictionfraud or misrepresentationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment and subsequent confiscation of land originally allotted to Mangli in District Sheikhupura. The core legal question involves the validity of the restoration of the allotment by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of the original allottee without notice to interested parties, and the rights of a purported bona fide purchaser where the initial allotment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly quashed the Settlement Commissioner's order, noting that the land was indeed subject to a confiscatory order by a Special Military Court and that alienation by an allottee is void if the allotment is subsequently found to be tainted by fraud or misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that an order passed without notice to interested parties is rightly set aside in constitutional jurisdiction, and alienation of land by an allottee is deemed void if the underlying allotment is found to be the result of fraud or misrepresentation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner restoring an allotment without notice to interested parties is lawful?
  • What is the legal effect on an alienation of land by an allottee if the allotment is subsequently found to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Is a bona fide purchaser entitled to restoration of land when the original allotment was confiscated and the alienation deemed void?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob And Others vs Government of Pakistan1985 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs Member, Board of Revenue And 9 Other1985 SCMR 1591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-15
  mortgage by conditional saleequity of redemptionclog on redemptionmartial law regulationres judicatadiscretionary remedyredemption of mortgaged lands
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from protracted litigation concerning a mortgage by way of conditional sale executed in 1960. The petitioner sought a declaration of ownership after the expiry of the redemption period, while the respondents sought redemption under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act. Lower courts and the High Court previously addressed issues regarding Martial Law Regulation 64 and the equity of redemption. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner could contend that the mortgage was void under Martial Law Regulation 64 to prevent redemption. The Court held that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by taking inconsistent positions, that a final judgment barring civil court jurisdiction on Martial Law Regulation 64 issues operates as res judicata, and that allowing the petitioner's plea would perpetuate injustice contrary to the principle 'once a mortgage always a mortgage'. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a litigant who previously argued a transaction was valid can subsequently plead that the transaction is void to defeat redemption?
  • Does a final judgment holding that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to examine Martial Law Regulation issues operate as res judicata against reopening the plea?
  • Is a stipulation requiring redemption of a mortgage within a strict period of one year a clog on the equity of redemption?
  • Can a petitioner invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court to perpetuate a manifest injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tasneem vs The State1985 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-10
  murderinterested witnesschance witnessocular testimonycorroborationrecovery of weaponcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the appellant and two co-accused, sentencing the appellant to death. The High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused but maintained the appellant's conviction, relying on the ocular testimony of a single witness corroborated by the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of an interested and chance witness, corroborated by a disputed recovery. The Supreme Court held that the ocular witness was both a chance witness and an interested witness due to his close relationship with the deceased, necessitating independent corroboration. The Court further found the recovery of the weapon unreliable, as the recovery witness was also an interested party and there were significant discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that the testimony of an interested witness requires independent corroboration, which cannot be provided by another interested witness.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an interested witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon witnessed only by an interested party provide sufficient corroboration for an interested ocular witness?
  • Is a witness who happens to be at the scene of a crime by chance, without a satisfactory explanation, considered a reliable witness in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The Election Tribunal And Another1985 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11
  election matterleave to appealelection tribunalinvalid voteswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Suleman petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-6-1984, which dismissed his writ petition in an election matter. The core legal question involved whether the Election Tribunal's order declaring certain votes invalid without detailed reasons and the alleged discrepancy in the Presiding Officer's signatures warranted constitutional intervention. The Supreme Court held that the contentions had been properly dealt with and repelled by the High Court, and the petitioner failed to find any fault in the High Court's reasoning. Consequently, the Court decided that the case was not a fit one for interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that where findings of fact by an Election Tribunal regarding the validity of votes and signatures are affirmed by the High Court with sound reasoning, the Supreme Court will not interfere under appellate jurisdiction unless perversity or legal flaw is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Election Tribunal is required to give detailed reasons for declaring certain votes invalid?
  • Does an alleged discrepancy in the signatures of the Presiding Officer on election documents warrant interference by the High Court?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal and the High Court in an election matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Nasib Ud Din And Other1985 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03
  cancellation of bailabscondenceZinapre-arrest bailHudood Ordinancepolice negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Naseebuddin, in a case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant contended that the respondent had absconded for five months, thereby disentitling him to bail under the principle established in Muhammad Sadiq v. Sediq, and further alleged that the respondent's name was interpolated into the bail order. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent had intentionally absconded and if the bail order was valid. The Court held that the evidence did not support the allegation of intentional abscondence, noting that the police had shown a lack of keenness to arrest the respondent, evidenced by their recommendation to cancel the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the circumstances fell within the exceptions to the rule regarding abscondence as a bar to bail, as established in Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan. The Court affirmed that where police inaction or slackness is apparent, the presumption of intentional abscondence is rebutted, justifying the retention of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to actively pursue an accused negate the presumption of intentional abscondence for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused person who has not been actively sought by the police entitled to bail despite a period of non-appearance?
  • Can an appellate court cancel bail granted by a lower court based on the allegation of interpolation in the bail order without supporting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Naseebuddin And 4 Other1985 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-23
  bail cancellationabsconsionpre-arrest bailleave to appealnon-speaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of an application for bail cancellation by the Lahore High Court. The respondents, including Naseebuddin, were charged under sections 6, 10, and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail on the grounds that Naseebuddin had absconded and that the bail order failed to discuss his case, addressing only the female co-accused. The core legal question is whether bail granted without considering the specific case of an accused who allegedly absconded is sustainable. The Supreme Court held that there is substance in the contention that the bail order omitted any reference to Naseebuddin and that he had not surrendered or appeared seeking pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against Naseebuddin while dismissing the petition against the remaining respondents, and issued a show-cause notice regarding the setting aside of the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused without discussing his specific case in the order is sustainable?
  • Can an accused who has absconded and failed to surrender be granted bail?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned bail order suffers from material non-appraisal regarding a specific respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman And Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim Through His Legal Heirs And Other1985 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-11
  necessary partylimitation periodclerical errormemo of partiespartition suitcivil appealsubstitution of heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the Lahore High Court correctly applied the principle in Labhu Ram and others v. Ram Partap and others regarding the limitation period for impleading a necessary party in an appeal. The core legal question was whether an appeal should fail for non-joinder or misdescription of a legal representative when all actual heirs were in fact served, had participated, and the omission was merely a clerical or typographical error in the memorandum of parties. The Supreme Court held that where a necessary party has actually participated in the appellate proceedings and the omission in the memo of parties is a mere clerical or typographical slip rather than a total failure to implead, the strict rule barring late impleaded parties after limitation does not apply, distinguishing it from Labhu Ram's case. The Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and remanded the matter for decision on merits, affirming that procedural slips where notice and representation are substantially present should not defeat substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal can be dismissed for a typographical error in the memo of parties when the necessary party has actually been served and participated in the proceedings?
  • Does the principle in Labhu Ram's case apply when a necessary party was already substantially represented and participating despite a clerical mistake in their description?
  • Can the appellate court invoke powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to correct a misdescription of a legal representative after the expiry of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soota And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19
  criminal appealsentence reductionminor rolerigorous imprisonmentappellate discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision by the High Court, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, Muhammad Boota and Bashir Ahmad, were originally sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Upon hearing the petition, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment regarding Muhammad Boota. However, regarding Bashir Ahmad, the Court considered the minor role attributed to him in the commission of the offence. The State counsel having no objection, the Court exercised its discretion to convert the petition into an appeal and accepted it to the extent of reducing Bashir Ahmad's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The key principle established is that the appellate court may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone where the role of the accused is minor and the prosecution does not object.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on the minor role of an accused?
  • Is it permissible for the appellate court to maintain a fine while reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Others vs Haji Talib Hussain And Other1985 SCMR 1918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22
  temporary injunctionsubordination of courtsrevenue court jurisdictioncivil court powersstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the refusal of lower courts to grant a temporary injunction. The petitioners, who were parties to pending civil proceedings regarding an arbitration award for land, sought to restrain the respondents from pursuing a separate suit in a Revenue Court for rent recovery and ejectment. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court possesses the authority to issue a temporary injunction to stay proceedings pending before a Revenue Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that a Civil Court cannot grant an injunction to stay proceedings of another court that is not subordinate to it. The key principle laid down is that the power of a court to issue an injunction is limited by the hierarchy of the judicial system; specifically, a Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain proceedings in a Revenue Court because the latter is not subordinate to the former in the relevant context.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court issue a temporary injunction to stay proceedings pending in a Revenue Court?
  • Is a Revenue Court considered subordinate to a Civil Court for the purpose of granting an injunction to stay proceedings?
  • Does a Civil Court have the authority to restrain parties from pursuing litigation in a court that is not subordinate to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Others vs Abdul Ghani And Other1985 SCMR 1104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16
  sale deed interpretationappurtenant rightsAbadi Dehconcurrent findingscivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition challenging concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court regarding the ownership of a residential house. The core legal question was whether a registered sale deed, which transferred agricultural land and appurtenant rights to an 'Ahata' (enclosure), also included the transfer of a specific residential house located in the Abadi Deh. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly interpreted the sale deed, finding that the disputed property was not included in the transaction. The Court reasoned that the sale deed did not specifically describe or mention the house in question, and the right to an 'Ahata' as an appurtenant right to agricultural land could not be extended to include existing residential structures in the village Abadi that were not part of the sold property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts were based on a correct interpretation of the documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a general reference to appurtenant rights in a sale deed for agricultural land be interpreted to include specific residential property located in the Abadi Deh?
  • Does the failure to describe a specific property in a registered sale deed preclude a claim of ownership over that property based on the deed?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the interpretation of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiqi vs Sh. Iqbal Bakhsh And Other1985 SCMR 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-09
  property transfersettlement schemeleave to appealfinality of litigationauction of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding the transfer of a property. The petitioner sought the transfer of a portion of property he occupied, alleging it had not been auctioned, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's claim for the transfer of the remaining portion of the property was maintainable in light of previous litigation regarding the same property. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's findings, noting that a prior judgment of the Supreme Court had already conclusively determined the issues of transfer, auction, and the petitioner's eligibility. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court correctly applied the principle of res judicata or finality of litigation, as the matter had been previously adjudicated. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner could not re-litigate issues already settled by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner re-litigate the transfer and auction eligibility of a property after a final decision by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a claim for the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII maintainable if the underlying issues of eligibility and auction have been previously decided by the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Mistri Muhammad Siddiq And Other1985 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15
  Settlement Scheme No. 1evacuee propertyremand orderauction-purchaseruninhabitable buildingproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order remanding a property dispute to the Settlement Commissioner. The dispute involves a shop in Hafizabad, which was damaged by fire during the 1947 disturbances. While the shop was allotted to the respondent's father in 1954, it was subsequently auctioned to the petitioner in 1960. The core legal question was whether the shop, having been damaged, was transferable under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. 1, specifically paragraph 21, which bars the transfer of incomplete or uninhabitable buildings. The High Court had remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner, finding that the authority had failed to properly consider the nature of the property and acted with undue haste. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the remand order, holding that the question of the property's state on August 14, 1947, remained to be determined. The Court clarified that the High Court's findings on the property's habitability were merely tentative and should not prejudice the Settlement Commissioner's final determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does paragraph 21 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 bar the transfer of a shop that was rendered uninhabitable due to fire damage in 1947?
  • Can the High Court remand a case to the Settlement Commissioner if the authority failed to consider relevant documents regarding the nature of the property?
  • Are tentative findings made by the High Court in a remand order binding on the Settlement authority during subsequent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Master Muhammad Munis1985 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14
  auction salesettlement authoritiesnatural justiceconstitutional jurisdictionproperty transferfactual findingswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the auction and transfer of property by settlement authorities. The respondent, an occupant of a shop, challenged the auction of the property in the High Court, claiming it was not included in the auction list and that he was denied natural justice by not receiving notice. The High Court accepted the petition, holding that the authorities erred by failing to serve notice on the occupant. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in reopening the auction. The Court held that the respondent's argument regarding the lack of notice was legally unfounded, as there was no statutory requirement to notify an occupant who lacked an entitlement to the property at the time of auction. Furthermore, the Court determined that the question of whether the specific property was auctioned was a factual matter already decided by the settlement hierarchy. Finding no misreading of evidence or jurisdictional error, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, affirming that factual findings by settlement authorities are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal requirement under the settlement laws to serve notice to an occupant of property before it is auctioned?
  • Can the High Court interfere with factual findings made by settlement authorities in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to serve notice on an occupant of property, who has no entitlement to its transfer, provide grounds to reopen an auction sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoab vs Hakim Ferozeuddin And Other1985 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26
  Provisional Transfer Deedcompensation poolsuo motu revisionmultiple allotmentlocus standidisplaced personssettlement of claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Lahore High Court order regarding the cancellation of a property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a Provisional Transfer Deed (PTD) issued to a displaced person could be set aside by the Settlement Commissioner through suo motu revision on grounds of alleged multiple allotment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's earlier finding—that the disputed portion was part of the shop transferred to the respondent—was a finding of fact that had attained finality. The Court established the principle that once a PTD is issued and the property exits the compensation pool, Settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to reopen the transfer via suo motu revision. Furthermore, a party lacking locus standi cannot challenge a transfer years later, particularly when the challenge is time-barred and the property is no longer available for disposal. Administrative finality must be respected to prevent endless litigation over settled property rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Settlement authority reopen a property transfer via suo motu revision after a Provisional Transfer Deed has been issued and the property has left the compensation pool?
  • Does a finding of fact regarding the identity of property made by an Additional Settlement Commissioner attain finality if not challenged within the limitation period?
  • Does a local occupant have the locus standi to challenge a transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, if they failed to establish entitlement before the relevant settlement scheme was promulgated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-27
  murdermitigating circumstancesdeath penaltycriminal appealabductionblood feudcompensationocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the convictions of the appellants for multiple murders and other offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while enhancing their sentences from life imprisonment to death. The appellants challenged these convictions and sentences before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding one appellant, Sultan, who lacked a clear motive, and whether the abduction of a female family member by the complainant party constituted a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that the evidence against Sultan was insufficient, leading to his acquittal. Regarding the remaining appellants, the Court maintained their convictions but reduced their sentences from death to life imprisonment, citing the complainant party's provocation—specifically the abduction of a woman—as a significant mitigating factor. Furthermore, the Court enhanced the fine imposed on the remaining appellants, directing that the proceeds be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abduction of a female family member by the complainant party constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can an accused person be acquitted when there is no evidence of motive and a possibility of false implication?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to enhance the fine imposed on appellants while reducing their capital sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Afsar Textile Mills Ltd. And Another1985 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-05
  land acquisitionreference to courtenhancement of compensationamendment of pleadingsspecial jurisdictionobjection to award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court addresses whether a court hearing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can permit an objector to amend their original application to claim increased compensation for acquired land. The appellant's land was acquired, and after being dissatisfied with the Collector's award, the appellant sought a reference claiming a flat rate. During the civil court proceedings, the appellant applied under Order VI, Rule 17 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to enhance the claimed amount. The trial court partially allowed the amendment, but the High Court set it aside in revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jurisdiction of the court under section 18 is a special and strictly limited jurisdiction confined to the specific objection and matter referred. The claimant must be bound by their pleadings and claims presented before the Collector. Consequently, a claimant cannot be permitted to introduce a fresh case or enhance the compensation claim through amendment beyond the scope of the specific reference and initial objections.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court hearing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act allow an objector to amend their application to claim increased compensation?
  • Does the civil court acting on a reference under the Land Acquisition Act exercise general civil jurisdiction or a special limited jurisdiction?
  • Is a claimant bound by the specific claim and pleadings presented before the Collector during land acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Puri And Another vs The Additional District Judge1985 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-26
  civil reviewreview jurisdictionevacuee propertyindustrial concernsettlement authoritiesconcurrent findingslaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises out of a common judgment dismissing earlier petitions concerning the transfer of evacuee property alleged to house an industrial concern. The core legal question involves the scope and limits of review jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact and the assessment of whether an erroneous finding or alleged misreading of a document warrants a rehearing of the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the exercise of review jurisdiction does not amount to a rehearing of the matter and that a mere erroneous decision, per se, is insufficient to justify review when finality attaches to the original judgment. The key principle laid down is that review cannot be used as a vehicle to re-argue the merits of a case or challenge concurrent factual findings unless an error of record is shown to be material and consequential to the final outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exercise of review jurisdiction permits a rehearing of the matter on merits?
  • Does an erroneous decision per se constitute a sufficient ground to justify its review?
  • Can a party challenge concurrent findings of fact through a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Administrator Thal And Other1985 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22
  leave to appealretrospective effectvested rightspending actionsjurisdiction of civil courtland allotmentcancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' regular second appeal. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted government land in 1950, which allotment was cancelled in 1957 without notice. A civil suit challenging the cancellation was eventually decreed by the trial court, but subsequently dismissed upon re-trial following the setting aside of ex parte proceedings. The District Judge dismissed the first appeal on the sole ground that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred with retrospective effect by the Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1975. The core legal question concerns whether a statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction applies retrospectively to pending actions and appeals instituted prior to the promulgation of the amending law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a statute affecting rights of action or taking away vested rights is presumed not to apply to pending actions unless express words compel such construction, and that the question regarding the legality of the cancellation required detailed consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statute taking away or impairing vested rights or jurisdiction has retrospective effect over pending actions?
  • Does a bar on civil court jurisdiction created by an amending ordinance apply to suits and appeals already instituted prior to its enactment?
  • Whether the cancellation of a land allotment without notice can be challenged in a civil court notwithstanding subsequent jurisdictional bars?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs Qudratullah1985 SCMR 1722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-27
  restoration of appealdismissal for defaultnon-prosecutionjudicial discretionleave to appealcounsel negligenceprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for the restoration of a regular second appeal that was previously dismissed for default and non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the failure of the petitioners' counsel to notice the listing of the appeal, resulting in non-appearance, constituted sufficient grounds for the restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the restoration application. The Court held that the explanation provided for the absence was insufficient and that the discretionary exercise of the High Court in such procedural matters is not open to further scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot automatically claim indulgence for the negligence or oversight of their counsel in failing to track case listings, and the High Court's refusal to restore an appeal dismissed for default, based on insufficient grounds, is a valid exercise of judicial discretion that will not be interfered with on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to restore an appeal dismissed for default?
  • Is the oversight of a counsel in failing to notice a case listing sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq And Another vs Atta Muhammad And Other1985 SCMR 1272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20
  civil suitleave to appealfraud and misrepresentationres judicatasettlement authoritiesfrivolous litigationcosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners against the concurrent dismissal of their civil suit and rejection of their plaint challenging the transfer of disputed property in favour of the contesting respondents. The core legal question is whether a party can resort to a fresh civil action to re-open a matter finally decided up to the highest court on a new ground of fraud that was available but never raised during the earlier settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court held that initiating a civil suit to re-open finally decided matters on grounds available earlier is improper, vexatious, and frivolous, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal with costs. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot circumvent final adjudications by launching a fresh civil action on new grounds that could and should have been raised in prior proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a fresh civil suit to challenge a transfer order already finalized up to the highest court on the ground of fraud?
  • Whether resorting to a civil action to re-open a finally decided matter on a new ground available earlier constitutes frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to award costs while dismissing a petition for leave to appeal under its rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Plant Protection Advisor and Director, Department1985 SCMR 1893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealtransfer orderdisobedienceremoval from serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, a Chowkidar, was transferred by departmental authorities, but his immediate superior, the Security Officer, refused to relieve him from his current posting due to security responsibilities and administrative control. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended and eventually removed from service following departmental proceedings for alleged disobedience. The core legal question is whether an employee can be held guilty of disobedience for failing to report to a transferred post when his immediate superior officially refused to relieve him and maintained control over his duties. The Supreme Court held that the submissions regarding the employee being trapped in an administrative conflict and obeying his immediate superior deserved consideration. The Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the petition, establishing that an employee acting under the binding instructions of their immediate superior prior to a modification of administrative control cannot be arbitrarily penalized for non-compliance with a transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be held guilty of disobedience of a transfer order when his immediate superior refuses to relieve him from duty?
  • Does an employee incur liability for following the administrative directions of a superior officer who holds lawful control over his posting at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1985 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-08
  Grow More Food Schemeproprietary rightsState landleasehold rightsadministrative policyconcession of salecivil appeals
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns twenty-eight consolidated civil appeals arising from disputes over the acquisition of proprietary rights in State land leased under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' of 1955-56. The core legal controversy involved whether lessees who were denied the option to purchase land due to specific restrictive conditions—specifically that leases must have expired before 1961—were entitled to relief. While the High Court initially dismissed petitions challenging these restrictions, a subsequent Bench took a contrary view, allowing such claims. During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the Provincial Government of the Punjab revised its policy via a letter dated April 26, 1971, extending the offer to acquire proprietary rights to all allottees under the scheme, regardless of lease expiry dates. Consequently, the Government conceded the lessees' claims and sought to withdraw its own appeals. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the lessees and permitted the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the Provincial Government, thereby settling the dispute in accordance with the Government's revised policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent change in government policy regarding the acquisition of proprietary rights for State land allottees render pending litigation moot?
  • Can the Provincial Government withdraw appeals filed by it against a High Court judgment if it has adopted a new policy that concedes the underlying claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Muhammad Ilyas1985 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05
  ejectmentbona fide personal needlegal representativesdeath of landlordleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the eviction of the respondent-tenant. The original landlord, Ghulam Muhammad, sought the ejectment of the respondent from a shop on the grounds of default, damage to property, and bona fide personal need. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original landlord died, and his legal heirs, the petitioners, were impleaded, subsequently filing an amended ejectment petition explicitly pleading their own bona fide personal need for the shop. While the Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that personal need died with the original petitioner, the appellate authority accepted the plea of personal need. However, the High Court allowed the tenant's writ petition under the erroneous impression that the petitioners were solely relying upon the personal need of their deceased father rather than their own. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioners' contention that evidence regarding their independent personal need was duly led and considered, granting leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bona fide personal need of a landlord abates upon his death during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
  • Can legal representatives of a deceased landlord amend an ejectment petition to plead their own personal need?
  • Whether the personal need of the legal heirs can be considered when they are impleaded in ongoing ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Maulvi Abdul Aziz And Another1985 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Deputy Commissioner/Election Tribunal And1985 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24
  election petitionre-electiondisqualification of proposerdrawing of lotsmaterially affected electionlocal council electionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against an Election Tribunal's order directing re-election for the office of Chairman of a Local Council. The petitioner initially secured 10 votes against the respondent's 9 votes. However, it was discovered that the petitioner's proposer was disqualified, leading the Tribunal to exclude his vote, resulting in a 9-9 tie. The Tribunal concluded that the election result was materially affected and ordered a fresh election rather than determining the winner by drawing lots. The petitioner contended that under Rule 59 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979, the defect in the proposer's qualification did not materially affect the election outcome and lots should have been drawn. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that whether an election result is materially affected is a factual determination for the competent forum. The Court noted that a proposer's influence on other voters could not be discounted, justifying the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disqualification of a candidate's proposer necessarily renders an election materially affected to warrant a re-election?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with an Election Tribunal's factual finding that an election result was materially affected?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And 2 Others vs The State1985 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16
  grave and sudden provocationmurdersudden quarrelmitigation of sentencecommon intentionself-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Three brothers appealed their conviction and sentence for the murder of a father and his son. The incident stemmed from a minor schoolyard quarrel between the younger brother of the appellants and the deceased son, which prompted the appellants to arm themselves with lethal weapons, proceed to the victims' Dera, and inflict fatal injuries. The trial court convicted all three appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing two to death and one to life imprisonment, which the High Court confirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants did not challenge their participation but sought mitigation of the sentence on the grounds of grave and sudden provocation and a sudden quarrel, citing earlier precedents. The Supreme Court held that a minor schoolyard dispute involving slaps between children does not constitute grave and sudden provocation capable of mitigating a deliberate murder committed after arming and traveling to the victims' location, nor was it a sudden mutual fight. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the convictions, while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the youngest appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor schoolyard dispute between children constitute grave and sudden provocation for elder brothers to commit murder?
  • Whether the principle of sudden quarrel applies when an attack is a one-sided retaliatory action following an earlier ended dispute?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be subjected to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar Khan vs Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1985 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  civil servantremoval from servicecriminal convictionacquittal on benefit of doubthonourable acquittalreinstatementnatural justicedisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the removal from service of an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, Punjab. The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which formed the sole basis of his removal under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 without a formal inquiry. He was subsequently acquitted on appeal by the High Court based on benefit of doubt. The departmental authorities and the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld his removal, invoking Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Vol. I, Part I, and citing adverse service record entries and lack of an 'honourable' acquittal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 7.3(a) governs pay and allowances upon reinstatement, not substantive grounds for penalty. Once the conviction was set aside, the substratum of the removal order disappeared, rendering it ineffective, and it could not be sustained by importing fresh grounds without violating natural justice and statutory disciplinary procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of removal from service based solely on a criminal conviction under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 survives once the conviction is set aside on appeal?
  • Does Rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, Part I provide a substantive ground for imposing penalties on a civil servant or does it apply only to pay and allowances upon reinstatement?
  • Can a departmental authority or Service Tribunal sustain a removal order by introducing additional grounds, such as bad service record, that were not part of the original disciplinary charge?
  • Is the requirement of an 'honourable acquittal' applicable when determining the validity of a civil servant's removal from service based on a conviction that has been set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Iqbal And Another vs Muhammad Mahmood And 21985 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06
  writ petitionrent matterreappraisal of evidencefindings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition in a rent matter. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could be called upon to reappraise evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held, relying on settled precedent, that a petition seeking reappraisal of evidence and reversal of factual findings is incompetent in writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact rendered by rent tribunals or lower courts cannot be reopened or reappraised through a constitutional petition under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is competent for the reappraisal of evidence and reversal of findings of fact in a rent matter?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts and tribunals in rent disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1985 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-12
  plea of guiltydrugs actleave to appealsubstandard drugscriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence under section 27 of the Drugs Act on the basis of his plea of guilty before the Drug Court. The core legal question was whether a conviction based on a plea of guilty could be set aside on the ground that the petitioner allegedly made the statement without awareness of the judicial proceedings or that the admission did not constitute an offence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea of guilty and admission that the recovered drug was substandard were correctly recorded by the Drug Court, and the contention that he was unaware of the formal nature of the proceedings was untenable. Consequently, the Court ruled that no interference was warranted and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that a voluntary plea of guilty and admission of the charge before a trial court forms a valid basis for conviction and precludes subsequent challenge regarding the lack of awareness of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction based on a plea of guilty be set aside on the ground of unawareness of judicial proceedings?
  • Whether a voluntary admission of guilt before the Drug Court is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Drugs Act?
  • Does a plea of guilty coupled with an admission that the recovered drug was substandard justify the refusal of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Sadiq and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabscondencefurther inquirymurderfugitive from lawdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's applications for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in a murder case registered under section 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the proper interpretation of 'further inquiry' under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the effect of an accused's prolonged abscondence on their entitlement to bail. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly evaluated the merits regarding further inquiry, it failed to consider the crucial legal effect of the respondents' six-month unexplained abscondence, which generally disentitles a fugitive from law to bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders granting bail, and cancelled the bail, while granting the respondents liberty to approach the Sessions Judge afresh to satisfactorily explain their abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct interpretation and scope of the phrase 'further inquiry' occurring in subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of a final challan or report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a court from granting bail under subsection (2) of section 497?
  • What is the legal effect of unexplained abscondence by an accused for a prolonged period on their right to obtain bail in a non-bailable offence?
  • Can an accused person who is a fugitive from law be released on bail notwithstanding their abscondence if they provide a satisfactory explanation or fall within exceptional categories?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Through His Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Rafiq And Other1985 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-11
  constitutional petitionnecessary partysuo motu revisionsettlement schemepermanent transfer orderfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examines whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a constitutional petition solely due to the failure of the petitioner to implead a third party who had moved the Martial Law Authorities against the transfer of a property. The dispute concerns the allotment and transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The Supreme Court held that the third party, who merely triggered the inquiry leading to suo motu revisional powers, was neither a necessary nor an indispensable party to the constitutional petition since no relief was claimed against her and her absence did not stultify the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the Settlement Authorities lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded transfer after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order, except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suo motu revision was based on incorrect factual assumptions regarding the non-filing of a transfer application. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the property transfer in favour of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who merely moves an authority to initiate suo motu proceedings a necessary party to a subsequent constitutional petition?
  • Can Settlement Authorities reopen a concluded property transfer and interfere with a Permanent Transfer Order in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does the absence of a proper party rather than a necessary party result in the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar vs Engineer in Chief Pakistan Army, G.H.Q. And Another1985 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-03
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212Service Tribunaldouble jeopardymisconduct inquirysuspension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his suspension and the initiation of a fresh inquiry into misconduct charges following his reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service-related grievances, specifically suspension and disciplinary proceedings, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's grievance regarding his terms and conditions of service fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the non-obstante clause in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grants the Service Tribunal overriding jurisdiction, thereby ousting the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of double jeopardy, noting that the initial removal was revoked due to procedural defects, not an acquittal on merits, thus allowing for a fresh, procedurally correct inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition regarding service-related grievances?
  • Does the initiation of a fresh disciplinary inquiry after the revocation of a previous removal order constitute double jeopardy?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters falling within the purview of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Others vs The Development Authority Through Administrator1985 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26
  leave to appealallotment cancellationtube-well schemecivil revisionservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding the cancellation of land allotment. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest were allotted land under the Tube-well Scheme by the respondent Development Authority in 1955. Following non-fulfillment of conditions, the allotment was cancelled after notices were allegedly issued to dead persons. The trial court and the district judge dismissed the petitioners' civil suit and subsequent appeal, and the High Court dismissed their civil revision. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation notice issued against deceased predecessors-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked force because record observations showed some petitioners were actually present before the authority during cancellation proceedings, and the point was not pressed or framed as an issue before the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment cancellation order is bad in law if notices were issued against a deceased person when the successors were present before the authority?
  • Can a party raise a factual contention regarding lack of notice if they failed to press the point and get an issue framed at the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Others vs Member Board of Revenue And Other1985 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14
  Muslim Personal Lawinheritanceland allotmentretrospective effectrevenue authoritieswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the remand of a revenue matter regarding land allotment and inheritance. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities had jurisdiction to re-open a final allotment order made in 1968 on the basis of a miscellaneous application filed in 1974, in light of subsequent legislation. The Supreme Court held that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction because sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 applied retrospectively from 15-3-1948, making Muslim Personal Law applicable to the inheritance in question and allowing pending applications to be decided accordingly. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to re-open a final allotment order on the basis of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975?
  • Does the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 apply retrospectively?
  • Can a miscellaneous application filed before the enactment of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975 be decided in accordance with it if pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad And Other1985 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23
  limited estateinheritance rightscompromise decreereversionary heirsdeclaratory suitmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment affirming a trial court decree in a civil suit regarding inheritance rights. The dispute arose following the death of one Fazal Din in 1946, whose property was initially mutated in the name of Mst. Hussain Bibi. A subsequent compromise between Mst. Hussain Bibi and Bulanda, the brother of the deceased, divided the property. The plaintiffs, collaterals and descendants of the deceased's daughters, challenged this compromise. The core legal question was whether the compromise decree between the limited estate holder (Mst. Hussain Bibi) and a claimant (Bulanda) could bind the reversionary heirs after the termination of that limited estate. The Supreme Court held that the compromise could not outlast the life or limited interest of Mst. Hussain Bibi. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' declarations that the compromise did not affect the plaintiffs' inheritance rights upon the termination of the limited estate. The Court refused leave to appeal, noting that the limited estate had terminated upon the death of Mst. Hussain Bibi.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise decree entered into by a limited estate holder bind the reversionary heirs after the termination of that limited estate?
  • Does a compromise regarding property inheritance survive the death of a limited estate holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs Mian Amir Khisro And Two Other1985 SCMR 1848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  service lawlimitation periodservice tribunaldepartmental appealseniority disputemandatory waiting periodtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside a promotion order in favor of the appellant. The core legal question concerned the correct interpretation of the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, particularly where a departmental appeal or representation remains undecided. The Service Tribunal had erroneously held that once the mandatory ninety-day waiting period for a departmental decision expires, there is no further terminal point of limitation for filing an appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this view, holding that the statutory limitation period of thirty days commences immediately after the expiry of the ninety-day waiting period, providing a total of 120 days from the filing of the departmental appeal. Applying this principle, the Court found that the respondent’s appeal before the Service Tribunal, filed nearly two years after the impugned order, was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the respondent's appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the mandatory ninety-day waiting period for a departmental decision remove the terminal point of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • When does the thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal commence after the expiry of the mandatory ninety-day waiting period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Others vs Mst. Surriya Jabeen And Other1985 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razaq And Another vs Mst. Gaite Majeed And Another1985 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  civil revisionnon-joinder of necessary partyamendment of plaintappellate discretionejectment suitmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision in an ejectment and recovery of rent suit. The core legal question concerned whether an appellate court properly exercised its discretion in allowing a co-owner, who was a necessary party, to be impleaded as a plaintiff through an amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal, thereby curing a defect of non-joinder. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court rightly exercised its discretionary power to implead the necessary party to ensure the complete and effective adjudication of the matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, notwithstanding that a procedural defect or lacuna existed in the original plaint. The key principle laid down is that procedural lapses and defects regarding necessary parties can be corrected by the appellate court in the interest of justice and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, and the mere fact that a procedural correction affects a defendant's technical defense does not render the exercise of such discretion improper.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the discretionary power to implead a necessary party through an amendment of the plaint during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can the correction of a procedural defect by an appellate court be challenged merely because it affects a technical defense or accrual of a right regarding a non-joinder?
  • Is a suit liable to fail irrevocably for non-joinder of a necessary party when such defect can be cured to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Muhammad Irfan And Another1985 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-28
  suspension of sentencebail after convictionvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal appealSupreme Court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant challenging an order of the High Court suspending the death sentence of the respondent and releasing him on bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence and granting bail to a convict held vicariously liable for murder under section 302 read with section 34 and section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where firearm injuries were attributed to a co-convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no case was made out for interference with the discretionary order passed by the High Court and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the High Court in granting bail and suspending a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless strong grounds are shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary order suspending a sentence and granting bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a convict held vicariously liable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to suspension of sentence and bail when firearm injuries are attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1985 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  leave to appealcriminal revisionidentification of accuseddaylight occurrenceconvictionsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction and sentence regarding an incident of causing injury. The petitioner was originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate under sections 325 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal trespass and causing injury. Following an appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence. Subsequently, the High Court altered the conviction to section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and further reduced the sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt, particularly given the complainant's ability to identify the assailant during a daylight occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the guilt was squarely established and that the petitioner had already been dealt with leniently by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding it devoid of merit, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior friction between parties regarding house evacuation constitute sufficient motive for a complainant to falsely implicate an accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained where the occurrence took place in daylight, allowing the injured party to identify the assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Abdul Hanan1985 SCMR 2082(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-05
  evictionpersonal useresidential buildingcommercial useconversionrent restrictionbaithak
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's eviction order against the respondent tenant. The appellant landlord sought eviction of a 'Baithak'—which formed part of his residential house—on the ground of personal bona fide need, whereas the tenant resisted on the ground that the premises were used for commercial purposes. The core legal question was whether the commercial use of a residential building, with the tacit consent or acquiescence of the landlord, alters its legal character to a non-residential building and bars the landlord's right to seek eviction for personal residential use in the absence of statutory conversion permission. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the eviction order, holding that under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller, regardless of the landlord's consent. The key principle laid down is that the unauthorized commercial use of a residential building does not change its essential character, and a landlord is not barred from seeking eviction for personal residential use.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commercial use of a residential building with the tacit consent of the landlord change its legal character to a non-residential building without formal permission under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a landlord barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a part of a residential house on the ground of personal bona fide need merely because it has been used for commercial purposes?
  • What is the effect of converting a residential building into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs Haji And Another1985 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17
  ex parte dismissalrehearing of appeallimitationsufficient causeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rehearing of a regular second appeal that had been dismissed ex parte. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel and whether the delay in filing the rehearing application was condonable under Article 169 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioners' counsel himself, lack of knowledge regarding the date of hearing was not proved, and the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the assertion of non-appearance due to a defective cause list must be substantiated by the personal affidavit of the counsel concerned to satisfy the requirements of sufficient cause and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for rehearing of an ex parte appeal is barred if filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 169 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is the personal affidavit of a counsel mandatory to prove lack of knowledge of a hearing date when seeking condonation of delay for non-appearance?
  • Does the omission of a case from a cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without supporting evidence from the counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The Election Tribunal And Other1985 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23
  election petitionlocal council electionworkers seatleave to appealmisreading of evidencesuspension of operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a challenge to an election from a workers' seat in the Local Council Election held on 29-10-1983, where the petitioner was declared successful. Respondent No.2 challenged the election through an election petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'worker', but rather the owner of a bakery. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void, and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner also failed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the findings of the Election Tribunal regarding the petitioner's status as a 'worker' on the relevant date were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the evidence established that the petitioner was not a 'worker' and was indeed the owner or manager of the bakery, consequently suspending the operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the findings of an Election Tribunal regarding a candidate's status as a worker are vitiated by the misreading of testimony and documents?
  • Can an election be declared void on the ground that the returned candidate does not qualify as a worker for the contested seat?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the appreciation of evidence by the lower tribunal requires further consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Deputy Commissioner Exercising The Powers Of Collector, Kasur And 2 Other1985 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23
  leave to appealmaintenanceconstitutional petitionright to fair hearingappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a Constitutional Petition challenging maintenance orders passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on two primary grounds: whether he was afforded an adequate opportunity to defend the case, and whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 500 per mensem was correctly fixed. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that both points had been adequately addressed and adjudicated upon by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference with the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the Court declined to grant permission for the petitioner to raise new points not previously argued. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment regarding maintenance orders when the lower court has already adequately addressed the issues of fair hearing and quantum of maintenance?
  • Can a petitioner raise new points for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ataullah And Other1985 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18
  writ petitionsettlement disputeres judicatafrivolous litigationSupreme Court Rulescosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to interfere with an earlier settlement revision order that had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is competent against an order previously passed by the High Court itself, and whether a separate civil suit is maintainable to reagitate matters already concluded by final judicial determinations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a writ petition cannot be issued against the High Court as it is not a 'person' under Article 199, and that initiating subsequent civil litigation or writ proceedings on questions already concluded is barred and constitutes frivolous litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court cannot issue a writ against its own orders, and that vexatious attempts to reopen finally adjudicated matters through fresh litigation will attract the imposition of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against an order passed by the High Court itself?
  • Can a party initiate civil litigation or writ proceedings to reagitate questions already concluded in previous rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court?
  • Is the imposition of costs justified in cases involving frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Malik And Others vs National Bank of Pakistan1985 SCMR 2047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-20
  mortgageprovisional transfer orderpromissory noteinterestnegotiable instrumentsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The National Bank of Pakistan filed a suit for recovery and sale of mortgaged property based on the deposit of a Provisional Transfer Order as a title document. The Single Judge held that no valid mortgage was created but awarded the principal sum with interest. On appeal, the Division Bench held the Provisional Transfer Order was a valid document of title and granted a preliminary decree including interest from the date of the promissory note. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the award of interest from the date of the promissory note and the validity of the mortgage created by a Provisional Transfer Order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a promissory note is payable on demand from its date, triggering interest, and that Rule 37 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 permits the holder of a Provisional Transfer Order to mortgage the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Provisional Transfer Order operates as a valid document of title for creating a mortgage?
  • From what date is interest payable on a promissory note payable on demand?
  • Is presentation for payment necessary for a promissory note payable on demand under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi And Others vs Muhammad Malik And Other1985 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-10
  refugee allotmentdouble allotmentsettlement authoritieswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning double allotments obtained by a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir in Sialkot District. The petitioners had applied for cancellation of the double allotment held by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Chiragh Din, which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who cancelled Chiragh Din's land in village Sahowali and allotted it to the petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner dismissed the respondents' revision. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the allotment pertained to Jammu and Kashmir refugees and was governed by a scheme precluding cancellation. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in interfering with the discretionary orders of the settlement authorities regarding the cancellation of allotments under the relevant scheme. The Supreme Court held that the submission regarding the High Court's error is supported by precedent, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the discretionary orders of settlement authorities regarding refugee land allotments?
  • Does a refugee scheme for Jammu and Kashmir immigrants bar the cancellation of double allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Panjal vs Syed Nisar Ahmed Through His Legal Heirs1985 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29
  ejectmentreconstructionrented premisesretrospective operationbuilding controlnon-objection certificaterent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which affirmed an order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner from shop premises on the grounds of reconstruction. The core legal question was whether the respondent's ejectment application, filed in 1981, was invalidated by the petitioner's subsequent argument regarding non-compliance with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, which was introduced in 1982. The Supreme Court held that the amendment introducing Section 6-A was not retrospective and did not nullify the approval of the construction plan or the sanction already granted by the relevant authority prior to the amendment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the contention meritless, particularly as it had not been raised before the High Court. The Court granted the petitioner three months to vacate the premises upon a voluntary undertaking to surrender possession without execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment introducing Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, have retrospective effect on pending ejectment proceedings?
  • Can a party raise a new legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
  • Is a landlord required to comply with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, for an ejectment application filed prior to the enactment of that section?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noor alias Norak vs Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-30
  criminal law special provisionsharaabahhudood ordinancedouble punishmentjurisdictionmurderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing a constitutional petition against the petitioner's conviction for murder. The petitioner was tried and convicted for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Tribunal constituted under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, following an incident where he shot and killed the victim during an attempted robbery. Simultaneously, another challan was submitted under the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for attempted robbery/haraabah, though no action had been taken on it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's trial and conviction under the 1968 Ordinance was without jurisdiction given the filing of a challan under the Hudood Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence under the Penal Code were not per se void or coram non judice, as no inconsistent order had actually been passed under the Hudood Ordinance to attract its overriding effect, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial and conviction of an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code via the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 is void when a separate challan under the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 remains pending?
  • Does the overriding provision of section 3 of the Offence against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 invalidate a conviction under another law before any inconsistent order under the Hudood Ordinance has actually been passed?
  • Can an offender be punished twice for the same act or omission constituting an offence under two or more enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niaz Khan vs The State And Other1985 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-28
  criminal appealmurderacquittalocular testimonycontradictionrecovery evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of charges relating to murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the ocular testimony, doubtful recovery evidence, and motive, and in concluding that the true genesis of the crime was suppressed by the prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the approach of the High Court in appraising the evidence was fair and proper, particularly in light of an earlier undisclosed incident wherein the injured witness sustained injuries. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order based on a plausible and correct appraisal of evidence, especially where material contradictions and suppression of the true facts are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction on the basis of doubts surrounding the ocular testimony and recovery evidence?
  • Can a previous contradictory statement made by an injured witness during police investigation be used to confront him under the law?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs He State1985 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22
  murderdeath sentenceocular evidencecriminal appealwitness credibilityknife attack
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of an Assistant Lineman, Falak Sher, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a Chowkidar, had attacked the deceased with a knife following a dispute over the use of office lavatory facilities. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the case was concocted due to internal office politics and election rivalries, claiming he was falsely implicated. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by three disinterested witnesses, finding their testimonies consistent and credible. The Court held that there was no evidence of bias or conspiracy against the petitioner and that the brutal, unprovoked nature of the attack, involving multiple knife injuries, warranted no leniency. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of disinterested ocular witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does a prior dispute regarding office union elections constitute a valid ground to discredit eyewitness testimony in a murder trial?
  • Can a death sentence be upheld where the accused commits an unprovoked, brutal attack with a lethal weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1985 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25
  leave to appealillegal gratificationreappraisal of evidencecorruptioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction for an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted for the mere reappraisal of evidence concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it is not a fit case for grant of leave for reappraisal of evidence when the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the courts below overlooked any material portion of the record. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with without showing that material evidence was overlooked?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mehram And Other1985 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-14
  murderinjured witnessinterested witnessvicarious liabilitycriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder and injury case. The core legal question concerns whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased or inimical to the accused, can be rejected solely on the grounds of being "interested" or "partisan" witnesses, and whether vicarious liability applies when evidence is consistent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of injured witnesses. The Court established that the presence of injured witnesses provides strong corroboration, and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for being "interested" if it remains consistent under cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that in cases of vicarious liability, consistent evidence allows for the conviction of accused persons based on their respective roles in the commission of the crime. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, convicted one respondent, maintained sentences for others, and upheld the acquittal of one respondent based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be rejected solely on the ground that they are interested or partisan witnesses?
  • Is the presence of injured witnesses sufficient to corroborate the prosecution case in a murder trial?
  • Can an appellate court convict accused persons based on consistent evidence of vicarious liability despite a trial court's acquittal of co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem. Butt vs Allied Bank of Pakistan through Manager, Abreshamgran Chowk Branch, Peshawar1985 PLD Supreme Court 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20
  limitationmutual open and current accountacknowledgment of paymentbanking companyrecovery of loanauthorized agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether a suit for recovery of a balance due on a mutual, open, and current account was barred by limitation under Article 85 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to the disputed credit entry. The appellant contended that a cash deposit entry of Rs. 24,000 made within the limitation period was unauthorized and unsigned by him, thus failing to save limitation. The Supreme Court held that the strict requirements of section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 regarding signed acknowledgments were inapplicable because the suit was governed directly by Article 85, where time runs from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered. The Court found on the evidence that the deposit entry was genuine and made with the authority and privity of the appellant through his authorized agent. Furthermore, even if section 20 were applicable, the requirements were fully satisfied as the agent was duly authorized. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account governed by Article 85 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can the authority of an agent under the Contract Act, 1872 be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the parties rather than an express written document?
  • Whether a disputed credit entry in a bank account is sufficient to save limitation when proved to be made with the consent and privity of the account-holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtazul Hasan vs Ata Ullah Mehar And Other1985 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05
  service rulesappointmentphysiotherapisteducational qualificationsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition challenging the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Physiotherapist (Grade-18). The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the qualifications prescribed under Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981, specifically whether a diploma-holder with extensive practical experience was eligible despite lacking a Bachelor's degree in Physiotherapy. The High Court and the Intra-Court Appeal bench held that the rules required a degree and treated qualifications and experience separately, thereby disqualifying the petitioner. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the High Court may have erred in law in its interpretation, granted leave to appeal, and ordered an expedited hearing given that the post remained vacant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate holding a diploma in physiotherapy with practical experience is eligible for appointment as a Physiotherapist under Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 without possessing a B.Sc. degree in Physiotherapy?
  • Do the clauses in Item No. 14 of the Schedule to the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 treat qualifications and experience separately?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin vs Rent Controller and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05
  ejectment applicationrent restrictionres judicatapersonal requirementlandlord and tenanturban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a rent dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant from a shop in Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether a second ejectment application filed by a new landlord (the son of the previous owner) was barred by Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, given that a prior application filed by his mother for the same premises had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the second application was not barred. It reasoned that the circumstances had materially changed: the property ownership had been transferred to the son, and the passage of four years indicated a genuine, independent need for the premises. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory requirement regarding the landlord not occupying another suitable building in the same urban area refers to occupation in one's own right, not merely by the courtesy of a relative. The principle established is that a second ejectment application is maintainable if a new cause of action arises or if circumstances have altered sufficiently to justify a fresh claim, notwithstanding the dismissal of a prior application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second ejectment application barred by Section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance if the circumstances have materially changed?
  • Does the term 'occupying' in the context of personal requirement under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance include occupation by the courtesy of a family member?
  • Can a landlord file a fresh ejectment application for personal need after a previous application filed by a predecessor-in-interest was dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The Senior Civil Judge And Other1985 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03
  election petitionelection tribunalsecrecy of ballotsuo motu jurisdictionleave to appealpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of an Election Tribunal which declared the election of the petitioner, Muhammad Latif, void. The petitioner had been declared successful in a union council election in District Sialkot, which was subsequently challenged by the respondent, Abdur Rehman, on the grounds of an illegal voter list. Although the Election Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations regarding the voter list, it proceeded to declare the election void suo motu. This action was based on the Tribunal's finding that the polling staff had recorded Identity Card Numbers on the ballots, thereby violating the secrecy of the ballot as mandated by the Election Rules, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether an Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised or pleaded in the election petition. Finding this to be a significant question of law requiring authoritative determination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Tribunal's suo motu powers in election disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised in the election petition?
  • Can an Election Tribunal exercise suo motu powers to invalidate an election based on violations of the secrecy of the ballot not pleaded by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16
  criminal appealocular testimonymedical evidenceasphyxiastomach contentsidentification at nightcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which the High Court subsequently modified to Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the alleged conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically, whether the presence of digested food in the stomach and the medical finding of strangulation contradicted the eyewitness accounts—and the reliability of identification at night. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and upheld the High Court's findings. The Court held that the medical evidence regarding asphyxia was consistent with the injuries sustained, and the High Court correctly resolved the alleged discrepancies regarding stomach contents and visibility. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the assailants acted in concert, and dismissed the leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners had already received the benefit of a lesser penalty due to the motive involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a perceived conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of death?
  • Does the presence of digested food in the stomach necessarily contradict eyewitness testimony regarding the time of the occurrence?
  • Is identification of known assailants by eyewitnesses reliable during the night of the fifth lunar month?
  Read full judgment →