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.

• Amir Ali vs The State1985 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25
  criminal misappropriationAhlmadleave to appealreappraisal of evidencecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Amir Ali against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the criminal misappropriation of a judicial file while serving as an Ahlmad. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction based on the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that no question of law requiring decision had been raised and declining to reappraise the evidence, as the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sound. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal where no substantial question of law is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition when no question of law is raised?
  • Does the misappropriation of a judicial file by an Ahlmad constitute an offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs The State And Other1985 SCMR 1820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal appealmurder convictionsentence reductionre-appraisal of evidencecattle trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case involving the murder of Gul Sher and injuries sustained by the petitioner following a dispute over cattle trespass. The trial court convicted the accused, Ali Dino and Lal Dino, under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act 1871, imposing sentences of death and life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ali Dino of the murder charge, finding no vicarious liability under section 34, and altered his conviction to section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court also reduced Lal Dino's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted him of the charge under section 307. The petitioner challenged these acquittals and the sentence reduction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence was sound and did not violate established legal principles. The Court affirmed that the application of section 34 requires specific evidence of common intention, which was absent regarding the murder charge against Ali Dino.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime automatically attract the application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the re-appraisal of evidence by the High Court if the findings are in accordance with well-settled principles?
  • Is vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable where common intention is not established by the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali And Others vs Mst. Anjum Sehra And Other1985 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18
  land settlementallotment cancellationadmissionconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-7-1980, which dismissed a constitutional writ petition arising out of a land settlement case. The core legal question revolves around whether a party can challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after previously admitting before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and based on misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is bound by his own admission and cannot subsequently escape its legal consequences. The court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by disclaiming an allotment before administrative authorities and later challenging its cancellation in writ proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after having categorically admitted before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and through misrepresentation?
  • Is a party bound by admissions made before administrative authorities during land settlement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanul Haq vs Saeed Huss Ain Bokhari And Other1985 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-14
  ejectmentrent matterreconstructionleave to appealsite plantenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) in a rent matter. The respondents-landlords had previously initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner on the grounds of property reconstruction, which were successful before the Rent Controller and upheld through subsequent appellate stages. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the eviction order solely on the contention that, based on the site plan submitted by the landlords, the specific room occupied by the petitioner would remain unaffected by the proposed reconstruction. Upon reviewing the site plan and examining the relevant evidence presented in the lower courts, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the necessity of reconstruction were sound and that the petitioner's specific objection regarding the site plan was factually unsubstantiated. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge an eviction order on the ground that the proposed reconstruction does not affect their specific portion of the premises?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters regarding reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs The Guardian Judge, Sialkot and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08
  guardianshipcustody of minorinterim custodydefiance of court ordersdiscretionary reliefleave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the orders of the Guardian Judge directing the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison for defying court orders regarding the production of a minor in a guardianship matter. The core legal question concerned whether a person who contumaciously defies interim orders of a court regarding the custody and production of a minor is entitled to discretionary constitutional or appellate relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having acted in deliberate defiance of judicial directions and with unclean hands, was rightly denied discretionary relief, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that discretionary jurisdiction, whether under constitutional writ remedies or appellate leave to appeal, will be withheld from litigants who act in contumacious defiance of lawful judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner who contumaciously defies interim orders of a Guardian Judge entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of a constitutional petition where the appellant has approached the court with unclean hands?
  • Can failure to produce a minor in compliance with interim orders under the Guardians and Wards Act justify committal to civil prison?
  Read full judgment →
• Alloo vs Sher Khan and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-15
  second appealfindings of factinheritance disputeagricultural landappellate powerremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal involves a dispute over the title to agricultural land in District Lasbella, Baluchistan, where respondents claimed ownership by inheritance from the original owner, while the appellant asserted ancestral possession and ownership, claiming to be merely a cultivator (Buzgar). The trial Court (Qazi) decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, but the first appellate forum (Majlis-e-Shoora) set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Upon a second appeal, the High Court reversed the Majlis-e-Shoora's judgment and restored the Qazi's decree. The core legal question was whether the High Court exceeded its powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by reappraising evidence and interfering with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court without properly comparing the conflicting reasoning of the lower forums. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to adhere to the established principles governing second appeals involving conflicting findings of fact between the trial court and the first appellate court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal when the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court are at variance?
  • What are the principles applicable to a second appeal when the first appellate court reverses the judgment and decree of the trial court?
  • Whether a second appellate court is required to compare the reasoning of both the trial court and the first appellate court before setting aside the lower appellate court's findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. And Another vs Ijaz Ahmed Abbasi1985 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-30
  Industrial relationsWorkman statusEstoppelPleadingsLabour CourtAppellate TribunalRemand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the termination of the respondent's service by the petitioner Bank. Initially, the respondent filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, after a prior writ petition was dismissed on the ground that his remedy lay before a Labour Court. While the Bank contested the application on limitation grounds, it did not deny the respondent's status as a workman. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement, but the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this, finding the respondent was not a workman. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, noting the Bank had previously conceded the respondent's status as a workman. The Supreme Court held that the Bank could not be permitted to raise a contention contrary to its own pleadings. However, because the Appellate Tribunal had not decided the case on its merits, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal be deemed pending for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to raise a contention in legal proceedings that is contrary to its own previous pleadings?
  • Should a High Court remand a case to an Appellate Tribunal when the Tribunal has set aside an order solely on a preliminary point without deciding the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Allahdad And Others vs The State And Other1985 SCMR 1173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  murderattempt to murderinjured eyewitnessmedical evidenceenhancement of sentencecompensationrelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from cross-appeals: one by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and the other by the convicts against their conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to commit murder under sections 302 and 307 read with sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the presence of motive, and whether medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, corroborated by natural witnesses and medical evidence, was creditworthy, and the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased did not render them interested or untruthful. The Court dismissed the convicts' appeal against conviction, upheld the life imprisonment sentence with modifications to the fine and compensation awarded, and partially allowed the complainant's appeal regarding the enhancement of fine and compensation to the heirs of the deceased and the injured witness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the close relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony untruthful?
  • Whether medical evidence contradicting minor aspects of an eyewitness account is sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a sentence of fine be enhanced along with an order for compensation to the heirs of the deceased under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar Khan And Others vs Mst. Sahib Khatun And Other1985 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04
  adverse possessionjoint appealinheritance rightsdecree implementationrevenue recordappellate interpretationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging revenue authorities' refusal to implement a 1951 High Court decree. The core legal question was whether a 1951 appellate judgment, which allowed an appeal filed jointly by the sisters of the deceased (Nawab Khan) and a third party (Muhammad Sher), effectively validated Muhammad Sher's claim of adverse possession over part of the estate, despite the trial court having explicitly rejected that claim. The Supreme Court held that the 1951 judgment, which focused solely on the sisters' inheritance rights regarding non-ancestral property, did not adjudicate or uphold Muhammad Sher's adverse possession claim. The Court reasoned that merely joining an appeal with successful parties does not automatically confer the benefits of that judgment upon a co-appellant whose specific claim was not addressed or accepted by the appellate court. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, establishing that a joint appeal does not imply a concession or judicial recognition of a co-appellant's independent claim in the absence of explicit findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint appeal filed by multiple parties imply that the appellate court's decision in favor of one party automatically validates the claims of all co-appellants?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of an appellate judgment if that judgment contains no discussion or finding regarding their specific claim of adverse possession?
  • Is a court's discretionary writ jurisdiction exercisable to enforce a decree based on a technical interpretation of a prior appellate judgment that did not address the petitioner's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar And Others vs Mst. Fozia Batool And Other1985 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02
  settlement scheme no viirural buildingtransfer of propertyleave to appealconstitutional petitionappurtenant land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents concerning the transfer of a rural plot under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioners and the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had both occupied the property, which included a built-up Kotha and unbuilt portions. Lower settlement authorities had previously divided the property, transferring the built-up portion to the respondents and the unbuilt portion to the petitioners. The High Court set this aside, transferring the entire property to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the property could be validly divided between the claimants under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The Supreme Court held that Settlement Scheme No. VII governs rural buildings and includes land appurtenant to the built-up portion, and does not envisage an arbitrary division of the plot and the built-up structure. Consequently, the Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming the transfer of the entire property to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Settlement Scheme No. VII provides for the independent transfer of open plots or building sites apart from rural buildings?
  • Does the definition of a rural building under Settlement Scheme No. VII include the land appurtenant to the built-up portion?
  • Can a rural property comprising a built-up structure and open land be arbitrarily divided between competing claimants under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and 9 Others vs Fazal Karim and 5 Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06
  civil revisionamendment of plaintclerical mistakemisdescription of partyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners-vendees' civil revision challenging the trial court's permission allowing the respondent-plaintiff to correct the particulars of a defendant in the plaint. The core legal question concerned whether the correction of a defendant's name in the plaint, where a clerical mistake resulted in a wrong name being assigned to the intended person, constitutes a permissible amendment or an improper addition of a party. The Supreme Court held that the mistake was merely a clerical error in describing the correct person rather than an omission to implead a necessary party, and upheld the amendment. The key principle laid down is that correcting a misdescription or clerical error in the name of an intended defendant already sought to be impleaded is permissible and distinct from impleading a wrong person or omitting a necessary party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the correction of a defendant's name in a plaint due to a clerical mistake constitutes an improper addition of a party?
  • Is the correction of a misdescribed name of an intended defendant permissible under procedural law?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The State1985 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-17
  interested witnessescriminal appealmurdercorroborationbenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponinvestigating officer credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a murder conviction where the appellant, Allah Rakha, was sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the recovery of a revolver, given that the ocular evidence was provided by interested witnesses due to deep-seated family enmity, and the integrity of the investigation was challenged. The Supreme Court held that in cases of intense enmity, the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent, reliable corroboration. The Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon and the crime empties implausible and unreliable, noting that the recovery witness was biased and the Investigating Officer’s credibility was compromised by the planting of other evidence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide the necessary corroboration to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where deep-seated enmity exists between parties, the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon without strong, independent corroboration, and the recovery of incriminating evidence must be scrutinized for credibility when the investigation process itself is suspect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon in a criminal case without independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon constitute sufficient corroboration when the recovery witness is biased and the investigation is suspect?
  • Should a conviction be set aside when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Hazur Bakhsh And Other1985 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-26
  habeas corpuscustody of minorabductionNikahage determinationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby an allegedly abducted minor female, Mst. Kalsoom, was ordered to be restored to the custody of her father, Hazur Bakhsh. The petitioner, Allah Dad, who had allegedly abducted the girl and performed a Nikah with her, contended that the girl was 16 to 17 years old according to a medical examination and wished to reside with him. The core legal questions involved the determination of the minor's age and whether her consent and Nikah while under the petitioner's influence justified denying her custody to her father. The Supreme Court held that authentic documentary evidence, such as birth entries, took precedence over medical opinion regarding age, establishing that the girl was a minor under 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision that statements made while under continuous influence are not voluntary, laying down the principle that the welfare of the minor is paramount in habeas corpus proceedings and that custody of a minor abductee should be restored to the natural guardian rather than an alleged husband where consent is tainted by coercion or fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical opinion regarding age should be given preference over authentic documentary birth entries in determining the minority of an abductee?
  • Can the custody of an allegedly abducted minor female be restored to her father notwithstanding an alleged Nikah with the abductor?
  • Whether statements made by a detenue under the continuous influence of the abductor can be considered voluntary?
  • What is the paramount consideration for a court while exercising discretion under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Shamshad Zohra And Other1985 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08
  restitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriageKhularemand of casesingle appealfamily court proceedingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner husband sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment remanding a family court matter for a fresh decision. The petitioner had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent wife sought dissolution of marriage. The Family Court decreed the husband's suit and dismissed the wife's suit, which was upheld by the appellate authority, partly on the ground that only a single appeal was filed against a common judgment. The High Court set aside these decisions in a constitutional petition, holding that the lower courts misdirected themselves in refusing Khula on improper grounds and ignoring material evidence. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of remand, holding that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 other than sections 10 and 11 are inapplicable to family proceedings, and therefore a technical objection regarding the filing of a single appeal against a consolidated judgment does not bar adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the technical objection of filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment stand in the way of adjudication in family court matters?
  • Can Khula be refused on the ground that the wife has been married once too often?
  • Are provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 other than sections 10 and 11 applicable to Family Court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Abdul Rashid1985 SCMR 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29
  ejectmentdefault in rentbelated pleaspecial leave to appealtenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Sahiwal town, ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld through successive appeals by the High Court due to a default in depositing rent for the month of July 1978. The core legal question was whether a tenant can raise a belated factual plea regarding late issuance of a rent challan by the Rent Controller to justify a delay in rent deposition when such a plea was never raised before the Rent Controller or the first appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were fully justified in rejecting the belated and unsubstantiated plea, as the tenant failed to raise it in his written reply or seek condonation of delay during the trial proceedings. The ratio established is that a party cannot introduce a factual defense for the first time in higher appellate forums without having pleaded and substantiated it before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant raise a factual plea regarding delay in depositing rent for the first time before the Supreme Court without having raised it before the Rent Controller?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing an appeal where the tenant failed to seek condonation of delay in depositing rent during the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman vs Government of N. W. F. P.1985 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27
  service appeallimitationsenioritypromotion listcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on merits as well as limitation. The appellant challenged his placement on Promotion List 'F' with effect from 20-5-1975 rather than an earlier date, and his subsequent ranking in the seniority list published on 20-10-1977. The core legal question was whether the appellant's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation under Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, having been filed after the statutory limitation period from the date of the adverse notification. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in holding the appeal to be barred by limitation, as the appellant was aggrieved by and ought to have timely challenged the notification dated 2-6-1975 which directly affected his seniority. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant must challenge an adverse administrative order or notification affecting seniority within the prescribed limitation period from the date of its communication or knowledge, rather than waiting for subsequent cascading listings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation when the aggrieved civil servant fails to challenge the foundational notification affecting his seniority within time?
  • Does the publication of a subsequent seniority list extend the time to challenge an earlier promotion notification that was already known to the civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher And Others vs Maskeen And Other1985 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-03
  evacuee landallotmenttime-barred appealRehabilitation Settlement Schemewrit jurisdictionproduce index unitslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of evacuee agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the appeal against the allotment was time-barred, whether the allotment was void ab initio due to a misleading note by a Patwari, and whether the petitioners held a superior claim as sitting allottees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appeal was indeed time-barred as no cogent explanation for the delay was provided. The Court further ruled that an incorrect administrative note does not render an allotment void ab initio, as the relevant scheme establishes priority categories rather than strict legal pre-conditions. Additionally, the Court found that the petitioner had already received land exceeding his verified claim, negating any equitable entitlement. The judgment establishes that administrative errors do not automatically invalidate allotments and that factual findings regarding claim satisfaction are generally immune from interference in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an incorrect note recorded by a Patwari render an allotment of evacuee land void ab initio?
  • Can a High Court interfere with factual findings regarding the satisfaction of land claims in writ jurisdiction?
  • Do paragraphs 68 and 68-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme create an absolute legal pre-condition for land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Kassam vs Fateh Muhammad And Another1985 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-24
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentlandlord and tenantauthorized agentdischarge of obligationsupreme court leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on all grounds, but the High Court reversed the finding regarding default and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. The core legal question is whether the payment of rent to the landlords' advocate, who had previously issued a notice to collect rent and admitted to receiving the same without a written authority after the notice period, constitutes a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation when the landlords never informed the tenant to pay directly to them. The Supreme Court held that the point raised requires consideration and granted leave to appeal, while staying the execution of the ejectment order subject to the deposit of rent in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that payment of rent to an authorized agent or advocate acting on behalf of the landlords, in the absence of a subsequent notice revoking such authority or directing direct payment, may constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's rental obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of rent to an advocate who was previously authorized to collect rent constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation?
  • Can a tenant be held in default of rent when payments were continuously made to the landlords' advocate without any intervening notice from the landlords to pay directly to them?
  • Whether the lack of written authority for an agent vitiates the rent payments made to him when his agency and receipt of rent are admitted by the agent.
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs The Additional Commissioner1985 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22
  displaced personsland settlementexcess allotmentreview powerwrit jurisdictionsettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging an order regarding the cancellation of excess land allotted to a displaced person. The core legal question concerns the validity of the cancellation of land allotted in excess of entitlement and the scope of review powers of settlement authorities under the relevant displaced persons legislation. The Supreme Court held that settlement authorities possess the inherent or statutory power to withdraw land allotted in excess of a claimant's entitlement, even on grounds other than fraud or misrepresentation. The Court found that the concurrent findings of fact established the original allottee had indeed received land in excess of his entitlement, and no error was shown in the revisional order upholding the cancellation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Do settlement authorities have the power to withdraw land allotted to a claimant in excess of his entitlement on grounds other than fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Can an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner reviewing a previous order be considered valid if it falls outside the ambit of the applicable statutory review provisions?
  • Whether an order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that an allottee obtained land in excess of entitlement can be assailed in writ jurisdiction when based on correct concurrent findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Hanif And Other1985 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18
  allotment of landagricultural landGhair Mumkin AbadiScheme No. VIIwrit petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over a parcel of agricultural land forming part of Khasra No. 860 in village Kamahan, Tehsil and District Lahore, which was allotted and confirmed in favour of the petitioners. Respondents challenged the allotment on the ground that the land was recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi containing their residential houses and was deemed transferred to them under Scheme No. VII. The High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition, holding the allotment in favour of the petitioners to be void ab initio as the land was not available for transfer as agricultural land. The core legal question addressed was whether land recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi and occupied by residential houses was available for allotment as agricultural land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals and the High Court regarding the nature and occupation of the land were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that land classified as Ghair Mumkin Abadi containing residential houses in actual occupation is not available for transfer as agricultural land.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi and occupied by residential houses is available for transfer as agricultural land?
  • Can an allotment of land be held void ab initio if it was not available for transfer under the relevant scheme?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature and occupation of disputed land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Another And Ghulam Hussain vs The State the State1985 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  dacoitymurderapprover testimonycorroborationidentification paradecriminal conspiracyrecovery of currency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a daylight dacoity and murder of a watchman during cash transit. Leave to appeal was granted to re-examine the evidence, specifically regarding the defence plea of false implication, the reliability and corroboration of approvers' testimony, the identification parades conducted after a considerable delay, and the credibility of recoveries including marked currency notes. The Supreme Court evaluated the extensive testimonies of eye-witnesses and approvers, alongside corroborative material comprising recoveries of looted money and weapons. The Court held that the approvers' testimonies successfully passed the twin tests of reliability and material corroboration, supported by reliable eye-witness accounts, identification parades, and incriminating recoveries establishing the guilt of each convict. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an approver requires corroboration in material particulars qua each convict to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a delay in holding an identification parade per se render the identification evidence valueless?
  • Whether the recovery of marked currency notes in original bank wrappings constitutes valid corroboration in a dacoity case?
  • Can the uncorroborated discrepancies in the roles assigned by approvers vitiate concurrent findings of fact by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher And Others vs The Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) And Other1985 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08
  land acquisitionmandatory injunctionbona fide purchaserThal Development AuthorityBoard of Revenueejectmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's decision to eject the petitioners from land measuring 560 Kanals. The land was originally granted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Haji Fateh Khan, as compensation for land acquired by the Thal Development Authority. While a previous High Court judgment in 1967 had granted a mandatory injunction in favor of the petitioners, declaring them bona fide purchasers and preventing the Authority from resiling from its commitment, the Board of Revenue subsequently ordered their ejectment. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, reasoning that the petitioners could not assert rights against the Government based on the exchange effected by the Authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the matter required further examination regarding the binding nature of the Authority's commitments and the Government's subsequent stance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the status quo regarding the land possession be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Government bound by the commitments made by the Thal Development Authority regarding land exchange?
  • Can a party be ejected from land after a previous court judgment has declared them a bona fide purchaser and granted a mandatory injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtari Begum And Others vs Rent Controller And Other1985 SCMR 2102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29
  specific performanceejectment orderinconsistent judgmentsleave to appealproperty disputestatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from two seemingly inconsistent decisions of the Lahore High Court concerning the same property and the same parties. The core legal question addresses the conflict between a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell granted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and a concurrent ejectment order against the same parties regarding a portion of the same property. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original owner, challenge the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings by lower courts regarding specific performance. Conversely, the occupants challenge the validity of the ejectment order in light of their possession of a decree for specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the soundness of these conflicting judicial determinations and the legal implications of holding a decree for specific performance while facing an ejectment order. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeals, thereby suspending the execution of the conflicting orders until the matter is resolved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell coexist with an ejectment order against the same party for the same property?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to reverse concurrent findings of lower courts in a second appeal regarding specific performance?
  • What is the legal effect of conflicting judicial decisions between the same parties regarding the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtargul Alias Akhtari vs The State1985 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonymedical evidencemotiveacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for a murder committed in Peshawar Cantt. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of corroboration, specifically where medical evidence and the alleged motive contradict the prosecution's narrative of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence regarding the direction of firing, the lack of blood at the scene, an unexplained fight prior to the shooting, and an unconvincing motive. The Court laid down the principle that uncorroborated interested witnesses cannot sustain a capital conviction when contradicted by material medical and circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is sufficient for a capital conviction when contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the motive and the exact place of occurrence?
  • Does a discrepancy between the eyewitness account of firing from the front and medical evidence showing a shot from the side undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14
  evacuee propertypower of attorneysettlement departmentfactual controversyconstitutional petitiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a transfer of property executed by an attorney, acting under a power-of-attorney, could be challenged by the principal after the transaction had been approved by the Settlement Department and the principal had allegedly received consideration. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed. The Court observed that the power-of-attorney explicitly authorized the agent to sell or transfer the property, and the transaction was duly approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Court had correctly identified a factual controversy regarding the principal's own receipt of funds, evidenced by a thumb-impression that appeared genuine upon comparison. Consequently, the Court affirmed that factual disputes of this nature, once adjudicated by the High Court, cannot be reopened in appeal, particularly where the agent acted within the scope of authority and the transaction was finalized by the relevant settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal challenge a property transfer executed by an attorney when the power-of-attorney explicitly authorized the agent to sell or transfer the property?
  • Is a factual finding by the High Court regarding the genuineness of a thumb-impression subject to re-examination in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the approval of a property transfer by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner preclude a subsequent challenge by the principal based on allegations of fraud by the agent?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Azhar Ali Shah And Other1985 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabscondencedelay in trialsuppression of material factsmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Sind High Court refusing to recall bail granted to the respondent, who stands accused of murdering his father. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail to an accused who allegedly remained an absconder for a significant period, suppressed material facts regarding prior bail rejections, and contributed to trial delays. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting bail, noting that the respondent's prolonged abscondence and subsequent conduct contributing to trial delays disqualified him from receiving bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, establishing the principle that abscondence and conduct causing trial delays are critical factors that weigh heavily against the grant of bail, and suppression of material facts vitiates discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be cancelled when an accused has remained an absconder for a long period and contributed to trial delays?
  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding prior bail rejections justify the recall of bail?
  • What is the effect of an accused person's conduct on the consideration for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Azhar Ali Shah And Another1985 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17
  bail cancellationsuppression of material factsstatutory delayleave to appealcriminal trialequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, who is the complainant in a criminal case registered under sections 364/34 and subsequently altered to 302/201/220 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against the Sind High Court's order dismissing an application for the recall of bail granted to the respondent-accused. The respondent had obtained bail from the High Court by allegedly suppressing the fact that his previous bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge just days prior, and relied on the statutory delay provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the suppression of material facts, the conduct of the respondent in delaying the trial, and the equities involved in granting bail. The Court granted leave to appeal and issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the bail application should not be re-heard due to the suppression of material facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of the recent rejection of a bail application disentitle an accused from seeking equitable relief regarding bail?
  • Whether bail granted on the statutory ground of delayed trial can be reconsidered if material facts were suppressed before the court granting bail?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against an order of the High Court declining to cancel bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Rahman And Another1985 SCMR 1929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  ejectmentdefault in rentlandlord and tenantrent controllercivil petition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by a landlord seeking ejectment of tenants on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents committed a wilful default in paying rent for the alleged period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no default was established, noting that the tenants had a history of regular rent payment, attempted to pay via money order and deposit in court when the landlord withheld receipts, and that the landlord's allegations appeared to be a fabricated story. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that the tenants' conduct was unblemished and discretion was rightly exercised in their favour.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the ejectment order on the ground of no default?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to issue rent receipts justify the tenant sending rent through money orders or depositing it in court?
  • Can concurrent findings regarding the absence of wilful default in rent payment be interfered with in leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Bagh Din And Other1985 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18
  pre-emption suitdeposit of sale pricefunctus officioextension of timeholidayleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his first appeal by the Lahore High Court. The trial court had decreed the suit on condition that the balance sale price be deposited by a specific date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The stipulated date and the subsequent days being holidays and the presiding officer being on leave, the petitioner applied for an extension of time on the first available working day, which was refused on the ground that the court had become functus officio. The core legal question was whether the time for depositing pre-emption money could be extended or computed under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act when intervening holidays prevented deposit on the due date, and whether the trial court remained functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the petitioner failed to deposit the amount on the reopening day and instead sought an extension of time, which the court lacked jurisdiction to grant once functus officio. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a pre-emption decree with a default clause for depositing the sale price?
  • Can the benefit of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act be claimed when a party applies for an extension of time rather than depositing the amount on the next working day?
  • Does a court retain jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after the expiry of the deadline fixed in the decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Aish Muhammad And 68 Others vs Pakistan And 75 Other1985 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-26
  civil servicepromotional examinationService Tribunal jurisdictionArticle 212eligibility vs fitnessconstitutional jurisdictionSection Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which held that a dispute regarding civil servants' non-promotion following a competitive examination fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The appellants had qualified in a promotional examination for the post of Section Officer, but only the top 100 candidates were promoted based on available vacancies. The appellants contended that all qualified candidates held a right to be promoted to existing and future vacancies before any fresh examination could be held. The Supreme Court examined whether the matter related to the terms and conditions of service or determination of fitness under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that non-selection due to a limited number of vacancies in a competitive examination relates to eligibility rather than suitability or fitness. Consequently, alleged non-compliance with promotional rules constituted a matter relating to terms and conditions of service, barring High Court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court accordingly affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion based on available competitive vacancies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether candidates who qualify in a competitive promotional examination acquire a vested right to be appointed against future unreserved vacancies when no panel is maintained?
  • Does the non-selection of a qualified candidate due to a restricted number of advertised vacancies constitute a determination of fitness under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali Mangi vs The Chief Secretary to Government of Sind And Other1985 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-23
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingsformal inquiryshow-cause noticemisconductservice tribunalefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant, a Civil Judge, from service by the Sind Service Tribunal following allegations of misconduct and corruption. The core legal questions concerned whether the 'Authorised Officer' was required to record reasons for dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and whether a second show-cause notice regarding the specific penalty was mandatory under the shorter procedure of rule 5(3). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that rule 5(2) grants the Authorised Officer discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry without recording reasons. The Court clarified that the requirement for a second show-cause notice, as established in Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government, applies only to cases involving a formal inquiry, not to the shorter procedure under rule 5(3) where the accused is already apprised of the grounds and proposed action. Additionally, the Court held that failing to specify the exact penalty in the initial notice does not prejudice the accused if they were aware of the potential major penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Authorised Officer required to record reasons for dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Does the procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, require a second show-cause notice regarding the specific penalty to be imposed?
  • Does the failure to specify the exact major penalty in a show-cause notice under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, invalidate the disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahman And Others vs Rehmat Khan And Other1985 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-20
  civil petitioncondonation of delayreview petitionex parte judgmentservice of noticesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two civil petitions arising out of an appellate judgment and a subsequent review order passed by the High Court. The High Court had accepted a second appeal setting aside the decree in favour of the petitioners regarding ownership of land by purchase, proceeding in the absence of the petitioners. A review petition filed by the petitioners, alleging lack of service for the date of hearing, was dismissed by the High Court after examining the record and concluding that proper service had been effected in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, and additionally noting that the petitioners' substantive case on the merits had also been examined. The Supreme Court considered the petition against the main judgment, which was barred by 26 days, and found no sufficient ground for condonation of delay since the petitioners' lack of knowledge plea had already been examined and rejected. Similarly, the petition against the dismissal of the review was found to be without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay of 26 days in filing a petition against an appellate judgment can be condoned when the plea of lack of knowledge regarding the judgment has already been considered and rejected by the High Court?
  • Is a separate notice required for a hearing date when the case is adjourned or heard on a subsequent date in accordance with the applicable High Court Rules and Orders?
  • Whether a review petition against an ex parte order is maintainable when the party was duly served for the initial hearing and the procedure followed complied with the relevant rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-15
  murderland disputeocular evidencecriminal trespassSection 382-B CrPCpossession of landappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder and murderous assault following a dispute over agricultural land possession. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of ocular evidence, the impact of not examining certain cited eye-witnesses, and the determination of actual physical possession of the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the complainant party's possession through documentary evidence and prior police reports, and that the ocular testimony was credible despite the non-examination of some witnesses. The Court dismissed the appeal on merits, affirming the convictions for murder and assault. However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the lower courts had failed to consider the period of detention already served by the appellants prior to sentencing. The judgment reaffirms that concurrent findings of fact regarding guilt and possession, supported by record evidence, are not subject to interference unless a legal infirmity exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-examination of some eye-witnesses cited in the F.I.R. automatically entitle the accused to an adverse presumption?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even if it was not considered by the lower courts?
  • Does a recital in a mutation deed regarding the delivery of possession constitute evidence of actual physical possession in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1985 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19
  murdersubstantive evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentencelife imprisonmentcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his room-mate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a witness statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be validly treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J of the same Code, and whether its exclusion would affect the appellant's guilt. The Court held that even if the contested statement was excluded, the remaining independent eyewitness testimonies, prompt lodging of the FIR, and circumstantial evidence of the appellant being apprehended at the scene with a blood-stained weapon were sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the alleged motive (a trivial quarrel over cleaning the room) was minor and the exact origin of the fight remained shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, granting the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if a witness statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded, provided other reliable circumstantial and eyewitness evidence exists?
  • Whether a trivial motive and an unexplained origin of a fight can serve as mitigating circumstances to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima And Other1985 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-29
  interim injunctionadverse possessiondispossessionrevenue recordcivil suitdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration of title based on adverse possession and to set aside a mutation, while also seeking an interim injunction to maintain possession. The trial Court refused to grant the interim injunction, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of possession, a decision upheld in appeal by the district court and subsequently by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts improperly exercised their discretion in refusing the interim injunction despite the petitioner's contention of actual cultivating possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper examination of the revenue record which prima facie demonstrated the petitioner's dispossession. The key principle laid down is that where revenue records concurrently establish actual dispossession and execution of ejectment proceedings, superior courts will not interfere with the discretionary refusal of an interim injunction by lower forums during the pendency of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted when revenue records prima facie establish the plaintiff's dispossession?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of an interim injunction?
  • Does a plea of adverse possession warrant the grant of an interim injunction without prima facie proof of current possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Din Muhammad1985 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-17
  ejectmentpersonal usebona fide requirementtenant evictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the tenant's second appeal against an order of eviction. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal use, as the landlord was a traditional practitioner (Jarrah) operating from an open footpath and sought to improve his business by moving into a proper shop. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding the personal need genuine, a view affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a landlord who operated from an open space at the time of letting out a property is barred from later seeking eviction for personal use to conduct the same trade indoors. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is entitled to improve their business status and that previous operation on a footpath does not negate a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for a shop. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord who operates a trade on a footpath at the time of renting out a shop forfeit the right to later seek eviction of the tenant for personal use of the premises?
  • Does incidental mention of a son's need by a witness detract from a landlord's consistent pleading of personal need for eviction?
  • Whether the omission to explicitly plead bona fide need in the eviction petition constitutes a fatal defect when evidence has been brought on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Another vs The State1985 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-17
  post-arrest bailmurdertrial delaypolice investigation reportexpeditious trialspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on allegations that they were declared innocent by the police during the investigation, the absence of fatal injury attributions, and the significant delay in the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court observed that the initial police report did not contain a definitive finding of innocence, while a subsequent report from the Crimes Branch found the petitioners guilty. While the Court rejected the plea based on the police investigation reports, it acknowledged the validity of the petitioners' concern regarding the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal but issued a mandatory direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the case, emphasizing the necessity of timely trials for accused persons in custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police report stating that witnesses are not coming forward constitute a definitive finding of innocence for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a significant delay in the commencement of a trial serve as a ground for the Supreme Court to issue directions for expeditious disposal of a case?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail solely because they were initially declared innocent by a police officer if a subsequent investigation report finds them guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03
  leave to appealexcess allotmentagricultural landconstitutional petitionresumption of landvendeessettlement claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed constitutional petitions filed by vendees of agricultural land allotted against a verified claim. The core legal question concerns the legality of resuming excess land allotted to a claimant who subsequently sold parcels of the allotted land to various vendees, and whether the last allotment or the last sale in point of time should be subjected to resumption. The Supreme Court considered prior case law regarding excess allotments and vendee protections. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that arguable points were raised as to whether the impugned order perpetuated a manifest illegality by allowing excess allotments to be enjoyed by the allottee and those deriving interest from him. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the proper application of resumption rules for excess land allotments among subsequent vendees warrant a detailed examination by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether excess land allotted against a verified claim should be resumed from the last allotment or the last sale in point of time?
  • Can vendees who purchased land from an allottee resist the resumption of excess land found to have been allotted fraudulently or in excess?
  • Does leaving an excess allotment to be enjoyed by the allottee and his vendees perpetuate a manifest illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Mirza And Others vs Ahmad Saeed Khan And Other1985 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-11
  evacuee propertydisplaced personsallotmentejectment proceedingsundisputed occupationultra vireslicenseerehabilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the transfer of an evacuee bungalow. The central dispute involved competing claims between unauthorized occupants and an allottee, Ahmad Saeed Khan. The appellants, who were in occupation of the property, contended they were entitled to transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and challenged the validity of a Central Government order dated 11-8-1960. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were mere licensees or unauthorized occupants whose possession was not 'undisputed' because valid ejectment orders had been issued against them. Consequently, they failed to meet the criteria for transfer. The Court affirmed that the Central Government’s order of 11-8-1960, which deemed allottees without physical possession to be in possession, was intra vires the Act. The Court clarified that the Act permits the government to deem possession for those with allotment orders issued before the cut-off date, even if physical possession was obtained later. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the transfer of the property to the respondent allottee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'undisputed occupation' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include the occupation of a person against whom ejectment orders have been passed?
  • Is the Central Government's order dated 11-8-1960, regarding deemed possession of allottees, ultra vires the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can a licensee or unauthorized occupant claim a superior right to transfer of evacuee property over a claimant holding a valid allotment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Iqbal vs Manzoor Ahmad And Another1985 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  double murderdeath sentencesentencing discretionattempted murderextra-judicial confessionmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's decision to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment for double murder and to alter a conviction for attempted murder from Section 307 to Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was justified in reducing the death sentence and whether the reduction of the attempted murder conviction was legally sound. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reduction of the death sentence, ruling that sentencing is a discretionary process and that the Court will not interfere unless the sentence is measured fancifully or in breach of natural justice, even if the prosecution's asserted motive fails. However, the Court reversed the High Court's alteration of the conviction under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that the evidence established a clear intent to kill. The key principle laid down is that while the failure of a motive may influence sentencing, it does not mandate a reduction if the crime remains heinous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive for a crime automatically entitle an accused to a reduction in the death sentence?
  • Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan authorized to interfere with a sentence that is legal and within the discretion of the High Court?
  • Can a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reduced to Section 323 when the evidence demonstrates a clear intent to kill?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Thal Bhakkar, District Mianwali And Another vs Ghulam1985 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-09
  civil jurisdictionrevenue courtsland revenue assessmentrejection of plaintShamilat Dehdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding Shamilat Deh and challenging the accuracy of revenue record assessments. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the suit was barred by Section 172(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters concerning land revenue assessment. The Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, concluded that the true nature of the relief sought was a reduction of land revenue, thereby falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, and rejected the plaint. This decision was upheld by the District Judge on appeal. However, the Lahore High Court allowed a revision petition against these orders. The petitioners subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the submission regarding the High Court's alleged misreading of the plaint required further examination. The matter was set for hearing on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to file additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership that also challenges revenue assessment entries fall under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court or a Revenue Court?
  • Can a plaint be rejected on the ground that the relief sought is essentially a reduction of land revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Imam And Others vs Zafar Masood And Other1985 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-16
  ration depot allotmentDistrict Allotment Boardvalidity of constitutionwrit jurisdictionadministrative lawlawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the allotment of a ration depot to the petitioners. The petitioners had been granted the depot by the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, upon the recommendation of a District Allotment Board constituted under the West Pakistan Food Stuff (Distribution) Order, 1967. Unsuccessful applicants challenged this allotment via a writ petition, arguing that the District Allotment Board was not constituted in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. The High Court accepted the writ petition, finding the Board's constitution invalid. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and found no legal error in the High Court's reasoning. The Court affirmed that because the District Allotment Board was not validly constituted, any allotment made upon its recommendation was without lawful authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the allotment process was fundamentally flawed due to the illegal constitution of the recommending body.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of a ration depot made on the recommendation of an invalidly constituted District Allotment Board is lawful?
  • Can an allotment be set aside if the recommending body was not constituted in accordance with the relevant legal provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam vs Government of West Pakistan And Other1985 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State1985 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Taj Muhammad Umara Khan vs Fazal Karim And Other1985 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid And Another vs Ghulam Maula And Another1985 SCMR 1700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25
  pre-emptioncourt-feedeficiency in court-feejudicial discretionleave to appealrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's objection regarding the delayed filing of a court-fee stamp in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee and whether such conduct amounted to extreme contumacy warranting the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and not interfered with by the High Court, declining to examine the merits further. The key principle laid down is that where a court exercises its discretion to allow a short delay in filing court-fees pursuant to established precedents such as Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, such exercise of discretion will not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or revisional courts unless it is shown to be improperly exercised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's discretion in accepting a delayed court-fee stamp?
  • Does a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee constitute contumacious conduct warranting the rejection of a plaint?
  • Is leave to appeal granted when the lower courts have properly exercised their discretion regarding the filing of court-fees in accordance with established precedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim And Another vs Ghulam Nabi And Other1985 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02
  civil reviewsettlement authoritiesrevenue recordtransfer of propertySupreme Court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil petition for review filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a previous decision regarding the allotment and transfer of Ahata No.11. The core legal questions raised were whether an appeal converted from a civil petition requires a bench of at least three judges, and whether the petitioners became transferees of the disputed property by operation of law under Scheme No.VII based on occupation. The Supreme Court held that under Order XI, petitions for leave against orders made by a Single Judge of the High Court may be heard by a two-judge bench, and that the factual question of occupation had already been conclusively determined against the petitioners by the Settlement authorities based on the revenue record. Consequently, no ground for review was established, and the petition was dismissed, laying down that concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities grounded in revenue records will not be interfered with in review proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal converted from a civil petition against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court requires a bench of at least three Judges?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding property occupation concurrently determined by settlement authorities based on revenue records be re-examined in review?
  • Whether occupation of a property under Scheme No.VII creates a legal right of transfer when revenue records indicate occupation by another party?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State And Another1985 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayunder-trial prisonerunconscionable delaymurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a murder trial where the petitioner had been in custody as an under-trial prisoner since July 1976. After nearly three years in custody, the Sessions Judge granted him bail on 25-4-1979, which was subsequently set aside by the Sindh High Court on 9-9-1979. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought bail on the merits and on the ground of unconscionable delay, relying on the amendments made to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amending Ordinance 71 of 1979. The Supreme Court observed that even after excluding the delay caused by five adjournments requested by the petitioner, he had remained behind bars for more than two and a half years without any assurance of when the trial would conclude. The Court held that such an unconscionable delay, not attributable to the accused, constitutes a valid ground for bail. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the High Court's order was set aside, and the petitioner was released on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an under-trial prisoner is entitled to bail on the ground of unconscionable delay if the trial has not concluded for over two and a half years?
  • How should the court calculate the period of delay for the purposes of bail when some adjournments were requested by the accused?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution cannot provide any assurance as to when the trial will be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shaukat vs Allah Bakhsh And Other1985 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-12
  leave to appealmortgage redemptionacknowledgmentTransfer of Property ActRedemption of Mortgaged Lands ActCustodian interestrevenue officer jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute concerning the redemption of mortgaged lands involving intervening Custodian interest and the application of the principle of acknowledgment. The core legal questions examined by the Court include whether the principle of acknowledgment was correctly applied in the absence of a signed instrument of acknowledgment, whether section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act affected the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in Punjab, and whether an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Redemption of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 was competent in view of the Custodian's intervening interest in the property. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the legal questions raised require detailed examination and ordered security of Rs. 1,000 along with the continuation of the interim status quo. The key principle laid down relates to the procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites for redeeming mortgaged properties burdened by Custodian interests and statutory acknowledgment requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether principle of acknowledgment was correctly applied to a case where there was no signed instrument of acknowledgment?
  • Whether section 67, Transfer of Property Act affected the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer in Punjab?
  • Whether in view of the Custodian's intervening interest in the property, an application under sections 10 and 11, Redemption of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 was competent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan And Others vs Tila Muhammad And Other1985 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-15
  res judicatasound disposing mindundue influencesale-deedconcurrent findings of factspecial leave to appealconsideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding a decree for possession in favor of the respondent. The dispute originated from a sale-deed executed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Haji Mian Muhammad, in favor of his son, Haji Fazal Elahi. The petitioners contested the validity of the sale, alleging lack of consideration, undue influence, and that the vendor lacked a sound disposing mind at the time of the transaction. The trial court, affirmed by the High Court, found that the vendor was of sound mind, no undue influence occurred, and consideration was paid. Additionally, the trial court noted that the petitioners were barred from raising these defenses under the principle of res judicata, as they had previously litigated the same property and sale transaction without raising these specific grounds. The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact already determined concurrently by the lower courts based on the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to raise available grounds of defense in a previous suit regarding the same property bar those grounds in a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in a petition for special leave to appeal where the lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Butt vs Munawar Ali And Other1985 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-20
  pre-emptionleave to appealorder of remandcross-objectionsagricultural landMuslim Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the trial court's dismissal of the suit underwent multiple rounds of appeals and remands before the Sind High Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court misread evidence regarding demands and contiguity, and that pre-emption was not exercisable under Muslim Law for the subject land. The Supreme Court examined issues concerning the finality of remand orders, the application of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding cross-objections by a respondent, and whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider the petitioner's arguments on merits. Finding that the High Court misapplied procedural bars regarding remand and cross-objections without examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner to examine these points.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of remand not passed under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 attracts the bar under Section 105(2) of the Code?
  • Can a respondent challenge findings decided against them in the courts below without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to consider arguments on merits regarding the validity of demands and contiguity in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And Another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)1985 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14
  informerland allotmentrehabilitation schemeexcess allotmentstatutory benefitrehabilitation department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The dispute arose between two sets of claimants, both asserting rights as 'informers' regarding excess land allotment to a third party. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who had provided information to the Officer Incharge of the Central Record Room, were entitled to priority over the petitioners, who had subsequently filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to priority as informers. The Court reasoned that the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the relevant scheme should not be interpreted narrowly to include only settlement authorities competent to cancel allotments. Since the respondents provided accurate information first, and the petitioners merely intervened during active inquiries initiated by the respondents' information, the petitioners could not deprive the respondents of their statutory benefit. The principle laid down is that an informer's priority is established by the timely provision of accurate information to the relevant department, rather than the specific authority empowered to finalize the allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the context of informer benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme include authorities other than those strictly competent to cancel and re-allot land?
  • Can a subsequent claimant, by filing an appeal, deprive an earlier informer of statutory benefits if the information provided by the informer was accurate and led to active inquiries?
  • Is an informer required to approach the specific settlement authority competent to cancel an allotment to qualify for the benefits of an informer under the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs Lt. Col. M. Nisar Ahmad And Other1985 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08
  criminal revisionsanction for prosecutionofficial dutyforcible evictionspecial law vs general lawprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Magistrate, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing his criminal revision. The petitioner alleged that the Deputy Commissioner and other respondents conspired to forcibly evict him from his government-allotted bungalow in retaliation for the petitioner's criminal action against a D.S.P. who had raped the petitioner's wife. The petitioner's private complaint against the respondents was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court for lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondents contended that the eviction was a lawful exercise of official duty under the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965, necessitating such sanction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying the core legal questions as whether the alleged acts were performed in the discharge of official duties, whether they fell within the scope of the 1965 Ordinance, and whether Section 11 of the 1965 Ordinance, as a special law, overrides the general requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to acts alleged to be committed in conspiracy and outside the scope of official duty?
  • Does Section 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965 override the general provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the necessity of sanction for prosecution?
  • Can acts of forcible eviction performed under the guise of official authority be considered 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duties' for the purpose of statutory protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shaheed And Others vs The State1985 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-23
  murdercommon intentionprivate defenceleave to appealdeath sentenceocular evidenceprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular evidence, the validity of the plea of private defence, and the propriety of the High Court’s decision to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular evidence credible and the plea of self-defence untenable, as the accused had inflicted numerous injuries on the victims. Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that while the High Court’s reasoning for reducing the death sentence was not entirely sufficient, the death penalty remained inappropriate. The Court held that where multiple accused share a common intention to commit murder, and the deceased had provided significant, unjustified provocation by restricting the individual liberty of the accused, the court may exercise discretion in sentencing. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in both the convicts' and the complainant's petitions, affirming the High Court's final sentencing determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea of private defence can be sustained when the accused inflicted twenty-two injuries on the victims?
  • Does the lack of identification of the specific fatal injury by a medical expert necessitate the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can the appellate court refuse to interfere with a sentence reduction even if the lower court's reasoning for that reduction is flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam And Another vs Munir Ahmed And Other1985 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21
  ejectmentpersonal needbona fide requirementRent Controllerconcurrent findings of factlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petition for leave to appeal arose against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the tenants' first appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the landlords' claim of personal bona fide need was genuine despite a prior rent-enhancement compromise concerning another shop with a different tenant, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the factum of a compromise in other proceedings did not detract from the bona fide personal need established for the specific shop in question, which was required for a brother's business. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the determination of bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact, and concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the High Court are not open to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's prior compromise involving rent enhancement with another tenant negate their bona fide personal need for a specific premises?
  • Whether the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide need?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman And 10 Others vs Province of Punjab Through Collector, Multan And Another1985 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-11
  temporary injunctionstatus quodiscretionary jurisdictionirreparable lossbalance of conveniencecanal authoritiescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit challenging orders by Canal Authorities regarding the alteration of a watercourse. The appellants sought a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the suit, which was initially granted by the trial court but subsequently set aside by the District Court. The High Court dismissed the appellants' revision petition, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in refusing the temporary injunction, specifically regarding the assessment of irreparable loss and the balance of convenience. The Supreme Court held that the District Court had correctly considered the relevant factors for granting or refusing an injunction. The Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience favored them, as they could still irrigate their lands despite the watercourse change. The Court affirmed that disputed factual matters regarding irrigation flow and procedural fairness should be addressed by the relevant Irrigation Authority, and thus, no grounds existed to interfere with the lower courts' discretionary findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in refusing a temporary injunction regarding the change of a watercourse?
  • Does the failure to demonstrate irreparable loss justify the refusal of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a court interfere in the discretionary findings of lower courts regarding the balance of convenience in the absence of legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Alias Sheeda vs The State1985 SCMR 1778 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-04
  baildacoitystolen propertyrecoverycriminal petitiontazir
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving dacoity and recovery of stolen property. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when stolen property, being the subject-matter of dacoity, was allegedly recovered from him, and notwithstanding that the offence is punishable under Tazir rather than as a Hudood offence due to the lack of required male witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in refusing bail given the recovery of the stolen property from the petitioner in connection with the dacoity. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that recovery of stolen property in such serious offences ordinarily disentitles an accused to bail at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a dacoity case where stolen property is allegedly recovered from him?
  • Whether an offence punishable under Tazir with the same punishment as prescribed under section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrants bail when recovery is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs Ali Hassan And Other1985 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23
  petition for leave to appealacquittalocular testimonymedical evidencetime of occurrencerecoveriesmotiveappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondents, who were tried for the murder of the deceased by firearm and incised injuries. The trial court had convicted the respondents, relying on ocular testimony, recoveries of incriminating articles, and motive arising from prior land litigation. However, the High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondents, holding that the eye-witnesses were interested and unnatural, their presence was doubtful, their testimony conflicted with medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and stomach contents, the recoveries were suspicious due to delayed forensic analysis, and the motive was vague. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranting acquittal suffered from any legal error or perversity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was fully justified in disbelieving the prosecution evidence, doubting the presence of witnesses, and discarding the recoveries and motive. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with when the appreciation of evidence is reasonable and supported by cogent grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction based on interested and unnatural witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful?
  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and stomach contents provide a valid ground for acquittal?
  • Whether delayed dispatch of blood-stained recovered articles to the Chemical Analyser renders the circumstantial evidence impeachable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Quddus vs The State1985 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14
  murderdeath sentenceimprisonment for lifecompromisecompensationmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the appellant, Abdul Quddus, was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, along with a fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the death sentence should be reduced in view of a compromise between the parties and the amount of fine substantially increased. The core legal question was the effect of a genuine compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict on the quantum of sentence in a murder case. The court held that upon satisfaction of a genuine compromise effected by the legal heirs of the deceased, the death sentence of the appellant should be converted to imprisonment for life while enhancing the compensation fine. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of the victim and the offender can be taken into mitigating account to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life coupled with an enhanced compensation fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a genuine compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased can be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the Supreme Court enhance the amount of compensation fine under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while commuting a death sentence?
  • What is the effect of a valid compromise presented by the legal heirs in a murder appeal before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Quddus Bihari vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparka And 9 Other1985 SCMR 2015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05
  evacuee propertyres judicatanon-evacuee statusallotment cancellationsettlement authoritiesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a long-standing dispute over the status of properties belonging to a joint Hindu family, which had been repeatedly litigated and adjudicated as non-evacuee property by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The petitioner, a temporary allottee, challenged the High Court's dismissal of his constitutional petition and the allowance of a petition filed by the property owners, which had invalidated notices issued by settlement authorities regarding the alleged evacuee status of said properties. The core legal question was whether the status of the property as non-evacuee, having been settled by multiple prior judicial and quasi-judicial orders, could be re-agitated by the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the status of the property as non-evacuee was res judicata, having been affirmed by previous High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Court affirmed that the settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue notices treating the property as evacuee property once its status had been definitively determined. The principle laid down is that where the status of property has been conclusively determined by competent authorities and upheld by superior courts, such findings cannot be reopened or re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the status of property as non-evacuee be re-agitated after it has been conclusively determined by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and upheld by superior courts?
  • Do settlement authorities have jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices treating property as evacuee property when its non-evacuee status has been previously established by final orders?
  • Does an order admitting a Letters Patent Appeal to regular hearing have binding effect if the appeal itself is subsequently dismissed for default?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Paracha vs Ghulam Hussain And Other1985 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12
  rent evictionprovisional rentstriking off defencedefault in rent paymentUrban Rent Restriction OrdinanceRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant for default in rent payment. The core legal questions were whether a tenant's defence could be struck off for non-compliance with a Rent Controller's provisional rent order, specifically when the tenant argued that a fresh order was required following the High Court's restoration of the Rent Controller's original order, and whether the quantum of provisionally determined rent could be challenged during default proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller's provisional determination of rent is binding and discretionary. Once the High Court restored the Rent Controller's order, the tenant was obligated to comply without the need for a fresh order. The Court further held that the legality of the quantum of provisional rent cannot be challenged during proceedings specifically concerning the striking off of a defence for default; such challenges are reserved for the final determination of rent at the conclusion of the case. Failure to comply with a provisional rent order empowers the Rent Controller to strike off the defence and order ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the quantum of provisionally determined rent during proceedings for striking off the defence due to default?
  • Is a fresh order from the Rent Controller required for rent deposit after an appellate court restores an earlier order for such deposit?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to comply with a provisional rent order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Mst. Razia Bibi And Another1985 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30
  gift deedPardah Nashin ladiesdelivery of possessionfraud and misrepresentationdeclaratory suitburden of proofvalidity of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a gift deed executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner regarding a share in agricultural land. The respondents, who are Pardah Nashin ladies, filed a declaratory suit alleging that the gift deed was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, claiming they believed they were executing a lease deed. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of fraud and confirming the transfer of possession. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, specifically the delivery of possession, and failed to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses to establish its execution. The High Court upheld this reversal, noting the lack of evidence regarding the execution and the absence of a justifiable cause for the gift. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts to be unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, affirming that the essential requirements for a valid gift were not established.

  Questions settled

  • Is the delivery of possession an essential element for the validity of a gift?
  • Can a gift deed be declared null and void if it was executed by Pardah Nashin ladies under the misrepresentation that it was a lease deed?
  • Does the failure to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses invalidate a claim of gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Secretary, Industries And Other1985 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08
  natural justiceprospecting licenceright of hearingappellate authoritymining rightsaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from a dispute over a prospecting licence for mineral rights in District Kalat. The appellant, Abdul Qadir, had received a favorable recommendation from the Mining Committee for a licence covering an area that partially overlapped with a previously cancelled licence held by the third respondent. The Secretary of Industries subsequently restored the third respondent's licence on appeal without granting the appellant a hearing. The appellant challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed the petition on the grounds that the appellant lacked standing as an aggrieved person. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a consensus. The core legal question concerned the violation of natural justice principles when the appellate authority decided the matter without hearing the appellant. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the shared view of all parties that both the Mining Committee and the appellate authority failed to provide necessary hearings to the affected parties, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Secretary of Industries for a fresh decision after affording both parties an opportunity to be heard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority violates the principles of natural justice by deciding an appeal without hearing a party whose interests are adversely affected?
  • Is a party whose application for a prospecting licence has been favourably recommended by a Mining Committee entitled to a hearing before an appellate authority restores a competing licence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Moulvi Arbab1985 SCMR 2086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-05
  evictiondefault in payment of rentburden of prooflandlord-tenant disputeexercise of discretionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which set aside an eviction order passed against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The central legal question was whether the tenant had committed a default in payment of rent for over a year and whether the High Court was justified in exercising its discretion to set aside the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically by ignoring the tenant's failure to tender rent through proper channels (money order or court deposit) after the alleged initial refusal by the landlord. The Court emphasized that the tenant's delay of thirteen months in remitting rent, coupled with the failure to follow the contractual requirement of obtaining receipts, established a clear default. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's order of eviction, ruling that the discretion exercised by the High Court was based on incorrect factual premises and a failure to consider the prejudice caused to the landlord.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent in court or remit it via money order after an alleged refusal by the landlord constitute a default in payment of rent?
  • Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding of fact regarding rent default based on a misreading of the evidence?
  • Is a tenant's delay of over a year in remitting rent, despite an alleged initial offer, sufficient grounds for eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Haji Ejaz Ahmad1985 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-24
  evictionpersonal needcommercial premisestenancy agreementbona fide needrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated against the appellant from a portion of a house let out as a shop under a tenancy agreement dated 11 September 1974. Eviction was sought on grounds including default, personal need, damage to property, and change of use. The trial court allowed ejectment on default, while the High Court upheld it solely on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal need for accommodation. The core legal question was whether a commercial premises could be sought for eviction on the ground of personal residential or family need under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, given precedents under the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1979 Ordinance do not distinguish between commercial and residential use in defining 'premises' or under section 15(vii) regarding personal need, and stipulation in a tenancy agreement cannot override statutory provisions or create estoppel. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether commercial premises can be sought for eviction on the ground of personal need under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 make any distinction between commercial and residential use regarding personal need eviction?
  • Can a stipulation in a tenancy agreement regarding the purpose of letting override the plain meaning of the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Mst. Naimun Nisa Begum1985 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And Others vs Muhammad Walayat Khan Through His Legal1985 SCMR 1018(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10
  leave to appealpre-emptionjurisdictionfirst appealstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question examined by the court is whether the first appeal in the pre-emption matter should have been properly filed before the High Court or the District Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court granted leave to appeal to consider this jurisdictional question and ordered the matter to be heard alongside other connected cases raising the same issue. Additionally, the court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the property in dispute until a specified date, subject to further applications for interim orders if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the first appeal in a pre-emption matter should be filed in the High Court or before the District Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maj1d vs Syed Azhar Ali Shah and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22
  ejectmentex parte orderpower of attorneymemorandum of appearancerent proceedingstechnicalitywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a landlord's writ petition challenging an appellate order that set aside an ex parte ejectment order. The Rent Controller had dismissed the tenant's application to set aside the ex parte order on the sole ground that the tenant's advocate had filed a memorandum of appearance instead of a properly executed power-of-attorney, which was deemed a violation of Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Additional District Judge reversed this on appeal, noting the advocate had prosecuted the case for two years without objection and had filed an affidavit of authority supported by the tenant. The High Court, however, restored the Rent Controller's decision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent proceedings, which are designed to avoid mere formalism and technicalities. The Court ruled that as long as no party is prejudiced and a fair opportunity is afforded, technical defects in representation should not defeat a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Can an application to set aside an ex parte ejectment order be dismissed solely because the advocate filed a memorandum of appearance instead of a formal power-of-attorney?
  • Should the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside an equitable appellate order on the basis of a technical defect in legal representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1985 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptiontrap raidpublic servantofficial dutybribery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner, a Reader to an S.D.O. in the Irrigation Department, was accused of demanding a bribe to facilitate a water-course dispute. A trap was laid by Anti-Corruption officials, resulting in the recovery of marked currency notes from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a public servant can be convicted of accepting illegal gratification if the act for which the bribe was accepted was not actually within their official duties. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the recovery of tainted money credible and noting that the raiding party had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Court laid down the principle that if a public servant erroneously believes an act is within their official duty and accepts illegal gratification by inducing such a belief in another person, they are guilty under the relevant anti-corruption laws, regardless of whether the act was factually within their official authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public servant guilty of accepting illegal gratification if the act for which the bribe was taken was not actually within their official duties?
  • Does the erroneous belief of a public servant that an act is within their official capacity satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Riaz Ud Din And Other1985 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-05
  transfer of propertyauction purchaserpendente liteconstitutional petitionspecial leave to appealservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the cancellation of a property transfer originally made in favor of a claimant displaced person. The core legal question concerned the validity of the notice of demand issued prior to the cancellation of the transfer and the legality of an auction-purchaser's rights acquired during the pendency of litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the lack of proper service of notice on the original transferee was essentially factual and suffered from no legal infirmity, and that an auction-purchaser who intervenes during pending litigation acquires no superior equities. The ratio decidendi is that the cancellation of a transfer without proper service of notice to the transferee is without legal effect, and a pendete lite purchaser's entitlement is entirely dependent on the ultimate outcome of the ongoing litigation. The Court laid down the principle that auction-purchasers acquiring property during active settlement litigation cannot claim independent equities if the original transferee's title is ultimately restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cancellation of a property transfer is lawful without proper service of a notice of demand on the transferee?
  • Does an auction-purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation develop superior equities if the original transfer is restored?
  • Can a factual finding regarding the service of notice recorded by the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court without showing misreading of evidence or error of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11
  land allotmentdismissal for non-prosecutionIntra-Court Appealwrit petitionquestion of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's third constitutional petition concerning a land allotment dispute. The petitioner's initial writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequent attempts to restore it or file fresh petitions were rejected due to pending appeals and gross negligence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he had pursued his remedies diligently and challenged the factual assumption of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the fixation of a three-acre allotment scale under paragraph 11 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court, after hearing the petitioner on the merits, held that the challenge to the settlement authority's factual assumption was raised for the first time and was unsupported by any evidence or certificate. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with a concurrent finding on a question of fact and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a factual assumption made by a settlement authority for the first time before the appellate court without producing supporting evidence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a finding on a question of fact where no material was placed before the High Court to disprove it?
  • Does the filing of multiple successive writ petitions on the same subject-matter after dismissal for non-prosecution constitute gross negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Niazi vs Punjab Province Through Collector, Multan1985 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14
  civil servantabatement of proceedingsservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil revisionsecond appealinfructuous appealmisconception of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil servant's challenge to his removal from service, wherein the Lahore High Court remanded a first appeal to the District Judge after setting aside an order that had dismissed the appeal as infructuous based on a mistaken legal statement regarding the effect of reinstatement. The core legal questions involve the scope of abatement under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for orders passed prior to 1969, the competency of a civil revision versus a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether an appellate court can interfere in revision with an order passed under a misconception of law. The Supreme Court held that the abatement provisions do not apply to departmental orders passed prior to 1-7-1969, that an objection to the form of proceedings (revision versus second appeal) cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court when it could have been cured in the High Court, and that a misconception of law by a counsel rendering an appeal infructuous warrants revisional interference. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the abatement provisions under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 apply to departmental orders passed prior to 1-7-1969?
  • Can an objection as to the competency of a civil revision petition instead of a second appeal be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Does a reinstatement of a civil servant prior to the filing of an appeal against a decree make the departmental appeal infructuous?
  • When can a revisional court interfere with an appellate order passed on the basis of a counsel's statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim And Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-04
  review petitionleave to appealjudicial observationstime-barredsettlement authoritiesmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal. The petitioners sought the deletion of certain observations made in the previous order, contending that these remarks had caused prejudice and led to a multiplicity of proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and noted that it explicitly directed settlement authorities to form their own independent opinions based on the facts before them, uninfluenced by the Court's observations. The Court emphasized the legal distinction between a judicial finding, the reasons supporting that finding, and incidental observations made during the reasoning process. It held that counsel should properly project this distinction in subsequent proceedings to avoid futile litigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the review petition was time-barred by 98 days. Consequently, the Court found the petition both meritless and hopelessly time-barred, leading to its dismissal. The principle established is that observations made by an appellate court while refusing leave to appeal do not bind competent authorities if the order explicitly directs those authorities to exercise independent judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an observation made by the Supreme Court while refusing leave to appeal bind the competent authorities in subsequent proceedings?
  • Is a review petition maintainable if it is filed with a significant delay and lacks merit?
  • What is the distinction between a judicial finding, the reasons for that finding, and incidental observations made during the reasoning process?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Adamjee Vasavadwala vs The State1985 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23
  leave to appealcase propertydisposal of propertysubstitution of propertycriminal procedurerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring certain case property consisting of tin ingots to the petitioner. The core legal question involved the proper disposal of case property under the Code of Criminal Procedure when substitution of property allegedly occurred during investigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case disclosed features requiring fuller examination in the background of the law and equities involved, particularly concerning whether fabricated evidence and property substitution by the investigating agency should warrant returning the converted property to the person from whom it was originally recovered.

  Questions settled

  • How should case property be disposed of under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when substitution of property occurs during the investigation?
  • Can a Magistrate determine questions of title regarding case property instead of returning it to the person from whom it was recovered?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in interfering in revision with an appellate order regarding the return of case property.
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee vs Sardar Muhammad And Other1985 SCMR 572 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-20
  petition not pressedwithdrawal of petitionsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the challenge raised against a lower forum's decision as presented by the petitioner. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court recorded the counsel's statement that he would not press the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The key principle governing such matters is that when a party elects not to press a legal challenge or petition through its counsel, the court disposes of the proceedings accordingly without entering into the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect when a petitioner's counsel states that a petition is not being pressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Barkat Ali1985 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01
  pre-emption suitsuit valuationcourt-feefard khalis profitcivil revisionagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the valuation of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the value of a well located within Khasra No. 635 should have been separately included in the 'Fard Khalis Profit' statement for the purpose of calculating court-fees, or if the well was merely subservient to the agricultural land. The trial court initially determined that the suit was under-valued because the well was excluded from the valuation. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, concluding that the well was not a separate entity but rather subservient to the agricultural land, thereby rendering the original valuation correct. The High Court, in its civil revision jurisdiction, affirmed the appellate court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact regarding the proper valuation of the suit. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was properly valued and dismissed the petition, establishing that a well subservient to agricultural land does not require separate valuation for court-fee purposes in pre-emption suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a well located on agricultural land must be separately valued for the purpose of court-fees in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding the valuation of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11
  writ jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesfinding of factrevision petitiondisplaced personsauction of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an order directing the auction of a vacant plot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the petitioner's contention that the Settlement Commissioner failed to decide his revision petition on its merits. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that while the petitioner argued the revision was not heard on merits, the Settlement Commissioner had, in effect, affirmed the earlier findings of fact regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of fact concerning the absence of possession was adopted and affirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner had no legitimate grievance. Consequently, the High Court's refusal to interfere was upheld. The key principle established is that where a revisional authority affirms a finding of fact by referencing earlier findings, such a finding becomes conclusive, precluding interference in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding possession made by Settlement Authorities?
  • Does a revisional order that affirms earlier findings of fact by reference constitute a decision on the merits?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the absence of possession by a party conclusive if affirmed by a Settlement Commissioner in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Zubaida Begum And Other1985 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22
  leave to appealejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal requirementconstitutional petitionfindings of factdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22nd March 1983, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a tenant challenging his ejectment ordered on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement of the landlady. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact on ejectment and whether the High Court properly considered the plea of misreading or non-reading of the record. The Supreme Court held that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact and that the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that interference with findings of fact under constitutional jurisdiction is unwarranted unless properly justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional writ petition is a proper remedy to challenge concurrent findings of fact in ejectment matters?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and personal requirement?
  • Is the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction unexceptionable when findings of fact are conclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Miral And Other1985 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-18
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailfirearm injurymedical evidencesupreme court review of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the cancellation and refusal of bail in a criminal case involving murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court interfering with bail granted by the Sessions Court, specifically regarding the evaluation of medical evidence, firearm injuries, and distance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the discretion properly exercised by the Sessions Judge, as the medical evidence showing blackening contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the distance of the shots, and there was no basis to treat one accused differently at the bail stage. The appeal filed by the accused whose bail was cancelled by the High Court was allowed, and the petition seeking cancellation of bail for the remaining co-accused was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by a Sessions Court in granting bail when the reasons given by the Sessions Court are cogent and proper?
  • Can bail once granted be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds showing a misuse of concession?
  • Does the presence of blackening on a firearm injury contradict ocular testimony regarding a long shooting distance at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Fateh Muhammad And Other1985 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-24
  acquittalbenefit of doubtmurderconcurrent findingspetition for leave to appealreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the acquittal of the respondents for charges of murder and murderous assault. The core legal question involved whether the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below based on the benefit of doubt arising from the defence version were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was justified in concluding that sufficient doubt was cast on the prosecution version, particularly in light of the testimony of a court witness, and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact through a reappraisal of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of acquittal based on a plausible defence version and benefit of doubt will not be routinely disturbed by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a trial court rely on the testimony of a court witness to support a defence version and acquit the accused?
  • Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted when both courts below have given concurrent findings of fact in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Chief Settlement Commissioner And Another1985 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-27
  res judicataSettlement Scheme No. ISettlement Scheme No. VIIInon-joinder of necessary partywrit petitionevacuee propertyauction sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court on grounds of res judicata. The appellant, a non-claimant displaced person in possession of a shop, declined to seek transfer under Settlement Scheme No. I in 1959, but later applied under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1968. Pending his application, the property was auctioned. His initial writ petition was dismissed on merits by a Single Judge and on the preliminary ground of non-joinder of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a Division Bench. A second writ petition impleading the Chief Settlement Commissioner was dismissed as barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court held that since the appellate Division Bench left the merits undecided in the earlier proceedings, no finality attached to the trial court's ruling on the merits, making res judicata inapplicable to the second petition. On the merits, the Court held that refusing transfer under Settlement Scheme No. I does not forfeit rights under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The auction was declared unlawful and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of res judicata apply to subsequent writ proceedings when an appellate court affirms a dismissal solely on a preliminary ground without deciding the merits?
  • Does a displaced person's refusal to apply for transfer of evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. I debar them from claiming transfer of the same property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Can evacuee property be validly auctioned while an application for its transfer under an applicable Settlement Scheme remains pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and Others vs Muhammad Shafi and Others1985 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-22
  customary lawagricultural landlimited estatereversionary rightsabsolute ownershipabatement of suitsshariat applicationretrospective legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment resolves four appeals arising from inheritance disputes in Punjab, centering on the retrospective impact of the newly enacted Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 (inserted via Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983). The core legal question was whether agricultural land acquired by a male heir under custom prior to March 15, 1948, is subject to customary restrictions on alienation, and whether pending suits or decrees challenging such alienations survive. The Supreme Court held that under Section 2-A, any male heir who acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim before March 15, 1948, is deemed to have become an absolute owner as if the land devolved under Muslim Personal Law. Consequently, customary restrictions on alienation are neutralized, and any decree or suit affirming a reversioner's right under custom to challenge such alienations is void, inexecutable, and abated, unless the transaction is past and closed by delivery of possession. The Court allowed the appeals of the alienees and daughters, dismissing the reversioners' customary claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a male heir who acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim before March 15, 1948, is deemed to be an absolute owner under Muslim Personal Law?
  • What is the legal effect of Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 on pending suits and decrees challenging alienations under customary law?
  • Does the delivery of possession under a customary decree render a transaction 'past and closed' so as to exclude the application of Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  • How are the limited estates of Muslim females under customary law distributed upon termination under the combined reading of Sections 3, 5, and 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan1985 SCMR 1963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-01
  service lawdepartmental enquiryremand of proceedingsService Tribunalcivil servant dismissalprocedural irregularityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the dismissal of a civil servant. The petitioner, an Assistant Director of Imports and Exports, was dismissed following a departmental enquiry. Upon appeal to the Service Tribunal, the two members were equally divided in their opinions regarding the petitioner's culpability. Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal, exercising powers under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, remanded the case for fresh proceedings, citing procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to supply the enquiry report and the lack of a show-cause notice regarding the penalty. The petitioner challenged this remand, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the legal competence to remand cases to departmental authorities and that the Chairman should have resolved the deadlock by granting the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the Tribunal's power to remand and the proper resolution of the deadlock between members deserved further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the legal authority under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 to remand a case to departmental authorities for fresh disposal?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for the Chairman of the Service Tribunal to follow when there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Khan vs Dr. Qabil Khan1985 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28
  leave to appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealillness of counselholding briefcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Sind dismissing an eviction appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently refusing its restoration. The core legal questions concern the legality of dismissing an appeal for non-appearance when a holding-brief counsel was present, and whether the court was justified in dismissing a restoration application based on counsel's illness by referencing prior adjournment requests despite unrebutted medical evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legality of the dismissal order and the treatment of the counsel's illness require detailed examination by the appellate bench. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a holding-brief counsel and the effect of unrebutted medical evidence regarding counsel's illness warrant thorough consideration when evaluating the dismissal of an appeal for default and the subsequent refusal to restore the same.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court justified in dismissing an appeal for non-appearance when a counsel holding brief for the engaged advocate is present in court?
  • Whether unrebutted evidence of a counsel's illness constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can a court rely on past adjournment requests to reject a restoration application supported by a medical certificate for a current absence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari And Others vs Muhammad Ishaque1985 SCMR 1783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-27
  ejectmentexecution proceedingsrelationship of landlord and tenantrent controllerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a second appeal concerning ejectment and execution proceedings. The core legal question involved the executability of an ejectment order and the determination of ownership and tenancy rights in execution proceedings before a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that where the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the primary tenant was duly determined by the Rent Controller and left unchallenged, and where the petitioners sought to establish their own independent title and ownership rights through execution proceedings, interference by the court was unjustified. The key principle laid down is that questions of title and independent ownership rights cannot be adjudicated or enforced within summary ejectment execution proceedings under rent laws, and a concluded determination of the landlord-tenant relationship binds the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can questions of title and independent ownership be adjudicated within execution proceedings of an ejectment order?
  • Whether interference is justified when a determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the Rent Controller remains unchallenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1985 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07
  review petitiondeath sentencecompromiseerror apparent on the face of the recordmercy petitioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a reduction in sentence based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether a post-conviction compromise between parties constitutes a valid ground for reviewing a final judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court held that it could not interfere in the matter as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a compromise between parties, while potentially reducing future violence, does not legally amount to an error in the judgment that would warrant a review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner could instead seek relief through a mercy petition to the Government.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between the parties after the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition constitute a valid ground for reviewing a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Is a compromise between the families of the deceased and the convict a sufficient basis to establish an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence in a review petition solely on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1985 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22
  urban settlementallotteeclaimantundisputed occupationintra-court appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal in an urban settlement case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, a local allottee in possession of a part of the disputed house, holds a preference over the respondent claimant, given that the respondent's occupation allegedly commenced with the permission of the petitioner prior to the target date. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the respondent's undisputed occupation of the house was correct, as the factual occupation was admitted and no ejectment order had been passed against the respondent before the target date. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the historical circumstances of entry do not negate undisputed physical occupation in the absence of prior eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allottee in possession has preference over a claimant non-allottee when the claimant's occupation of a portion of the house is admitted?
  • Does the permissive entry of a resident prior to the target date render their occupation disputed for settlement purposes in the absence of an ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Shah And Another vs Abdul Ghafoor And Another1985 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06
  case decidedcivil revisionamendment of plaintpower of attorneylimitationprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision petition. The core legal questions involved whether the grant of an amendment application constitutes a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the presentation of a plaint by a pleader lacking a written power of attorney within the period of limitation renders it invalid. The Supreme Court observed that an order allowing an amendment of the plaint after judicially considering facts can amount to a 'case decided', but noted that such an exercise is academic since all questions raised before the trial court can be re-agitated in an appeal against a decree. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that further consideration of the second question was unnecessary as it would be a futile exercise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of an amendment application constitutes a case decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an order allowing the amendment of a plaint after judicially considering the facts amount to a case decided?
  • Does a plaint presented by a pleader without a written power of attorney fail to be regarded as validly presented within the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz And Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner And Other1985 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-28
  land allotmentres judicatapast and closed transactionsevacuee propertysettlement of landfinality of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the allotment of land. The petitioners, previously found to have received excess land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, had their excess allotment cancelled. Despite previous litigation concluding against them, the petitioners initiated a new round of litigation challenging the subsequent allotment of that same land to a third party. They relied on the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, claiming entitlement based on their possession of the land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was meritless, noting that the matter had already been justly concluded in previous litigation. The Court affirmed that the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, does not allow for the re-opening of past and closed transactions or concluded decisions. Consequently, the plea based on possession was legally unavailable to the petitioners, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 allow for the re-opening of concluded litigation regarding land allotments?
  • Can a party re-agitate a claim to land after the matter has been previously decided and concluded by the courts?
  • Does possession of land grant a right to transfer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 if the underlying allotment dispute has already been settled?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz And Another vs Akbar Khan1985 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29
  pre-emptionsale pricemarket valuemutation of salegood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits concerning sales of agricultural land in Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the trial court was under a mandatory obligation under section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, to determine the market value of the suit properties when a dispute regarding the sale price existed, and whether the mutation entries regarding price were conclusive. The Supreme Court held that where the pre-emptor eventually accepts and admits the ostensible sale price recorded in the mutation during the trial, and the vendee fails to produce evidence to substantiate a higher price or provide data for determining market value, section 25(1) of the Act is not attracted because the parties are no longer in disagreement as to the price. The Court further clarified that the price was accepted based on the substantive admission of the pre-emptor rather than the strict conclusiveness of the mutation entry. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court is bound to determine the market value under section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, when the pre-emptor accepts the sale price mentioned in the mutation during the trial?
  • Does section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, apply when the parties are no longer in disagreement as to the price at which the pre-emptor shall exercise the right of pre-emption?
  • Can the sale price accepted by a pre-emptor at trial be acted upon by the court in the absence of evidence regarding market value?
  Read full judgment →
• Abaad Ali And Another vs Sakhi Hussain1985 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05
  sale of landMartial Law Regulationconsolidation proceedingsdeclaration suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural land sold by the respondent to the petitioners via a registered sale deed in 1963. Years later, during consolidation proceedings, additional land was discovered, increasing the vendor's total share, whereupon it was alleged that the sale contravened Martial Law Regulation No. 64 for not including the vendor's entire holding. The petitioners instituted a civil suit for a declaration that the sale was legal and valid, which was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the lower appellate court and the High Court on appeal. The core legal questions involve whether a transaction valid when entered into can be invalidated by facts discovered years later, and whether a civil court suit was competent in view of paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 59. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions, ordering the appeal to be made ready on the present record while maintaining the interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction, legal and valid when entered upon, can be declared invalid on the discovery of certain facts several years later?
  • Whether a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that a transaction of sale was not hit by Martial Law Regulation No. 64 was competent in view of paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 59?
  Read full judgment →
• A.K. Niazi And Others vs Muhammad Ismail And Other1985 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-08
  review petitionsupreme court reviewpossession disputesettlement departmentletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review application filed by A.K. Niazi and others against the previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 2-4-1979. The core legal question raised in the review was whether certain factual findings regarding the possession of the respondent, Sh. Muhammad Ismail, and the assertion that the petitioners had not raised the possession point at various stages were incorrect. The Supreme Court observed that the contested point did not figure in the impugned judgment of the Letters Patent Appeal Bench or in the relevant order of the Settlement Department. Consequently, the Court held that neither legally nor factual grounds were established to warrant a review of the previous order. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed when the grounds urged were not part of the record or the impugned judgments below, failing to meet the strict legal and factual thresholds required for review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grounds urged failed to figure in the impugned judgments or departmental orders?
  • What constitutes sufficient legal or factual grounds for the review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• A. F. Ferguson & Co. vs The Sind Labour Court and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08
  constitutional petitionpiecemeal adjudicationindustrychartered accountantspremature petitionLabour Court jurisdictioncollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Constitutional Petition filed by a firm of Chartered Accountants challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the firm constituted an 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Ordinance and that the trade union had locus standi, while leaving the question of whether the union qualified as a Collective Bargaining Agent to the Labour Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a constitutional petition challenging jurisdiction should be entertained when it results in piecemeal adjudication. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not ordinarily be exercised where it does not completely dispose of the case. Fragmentary and piecemeal decisions of causes are disfavored. While dismissing the appeal and upholding the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was premature, the Supreme Court clarified that it did not agree with the High Court's determination that the chartered accountancy firm constituted an 'industry'. The Labour Court was directed to decide all pending questions and objections.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when doing so will not completely dispose of the case and results in piecemeal adjudication?
  • Is a constitutional petition challenging the jurisdiction of a Labour Court premature if disputed questions of fact remain to be determined by the Labour Court?
  • Whether the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 includes learned and liberal professions like chartered accountancy?
  Read full judgment →
• (Sh .) Muhammad Azam vs (Sh.) Gulzar Ahmad And Another1985 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementconstitutional jurisdictionjudicial reviewfindings of factrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order against a tenant, where the landlord sought possession of shop premises for his son's business. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, finding the landlord's claim lacked good faith. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the landlord's evidence was credible and corroborated, and that previous compromises regarding rent did not negate current bona fide requirements. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate court's order in its constitutional jurisdiction, finding no jurisdictional error and noting that constitutional review should not function as a substitute for a second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that it would not re-examine questions of fact conclusively determined by the appellate court acting as a special forum under the relevant rent legislation. The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for a regular second appeal, particularly where such appeals have been abolished by statute, and findings of fact by the appellate authority are generally final.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction as a substitute for a regular second appeal in rent cases?
  • Are findings of fact determined by an appellate court under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, subject to re-examination by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a landlord's previous compromise with a tenant regarding rent enhancement preclude a subsequent claim of bona fide requirement for the premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziladar Khan and Another vs Abdul Shakur and Another1984 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25
  agricultural landmutationcollateral successionburden of prooforal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular First Appeal concerning agricultural land previously owned by one Ismail, who died issueless. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established their status as collaterals of the deceased owner entitled to inherit the estate upon the death of the widow, Mst. Fazeelat Begum, and whether the mutation in her favor was void. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish their collateral status, as their oral testimony lacked first-hand knowledge of the deceased's parentage, whereas the respondents produced contradictory evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners had not proven their relationship to the last male owner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs claiming as collaterals to establish their parentage and relationship to the last male owner?
  • Can oral testimony by witnesses lacking first-hand information regarding parentage suffice to prove collateral succession?
  • Whether a mutation of property in favor of a deceased owner's widow can be successfully challenged without proof of collateral status?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaulhassan vs The State1984 PLD Supreme Court 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-16
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmisappropriationmala fidescriminal investigationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order cancelling the petitioner's pre-arrest bail in a case involving the misappropriation of valuable articles by a police official. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could cancel bail after a significant lapse of time, whether the trial court must be approached first for cancellation, and whether the potential for recovery of misappropriated property constitutes valid grounds for cancellation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s cancellation was justified. The Court affirmed that there is no rigid rule regarding the time limit for cancellation; rather, it depends on the circumstances, including whether the initial bail order was illegal or lacked awareness of the law. Furthermore, the Court established that the recovery of stolen or misappropriated property is a valid ground for cancellation. Crucially, the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail requires specific proof of mala fides regarding the intended arrest, and an order granting such bail without addressing this requirement or the necessity of investigation is legally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a rigid time limit after which bail cannot be cancelled by a superior court?
  • Must the court that originally granted bail be approached first for its cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the potential recovery of misappropriated articles serve as a valid ground for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the essential condition that must be satisfied to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Anwar and Others vs Ghulam Muhammad and Others1984 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-04
  ejectmentsublettingwaiverestoppelpleadingsframing of issuesrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the ejectment of their tenant, respondent No. 1, on the ground of unauthorized subletting of a shop to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding that subletting had occurred. This order was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings. While acknowledging the subletting, the High Court held that the petitioners had waived their right to seek ejectment by accepting rent from the sub-tenants for years, thereby creating an estoppel. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred by introducing a plea of waiver and estoppel that was never raised in the pleadings, nor framed as an issue, and regarding which no evidence was led. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contentions regarding the High Court's justification in making out a new case for the respondents and the alleged oversight of material evidence required further consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court decide a case based on a plea of waiver or estoppel that was neither pleaded nor framed as an issue by the parties?
  • Is a landlord estopped from seeking ejectment on the ground of subletting if they have accepted rent from the sub-tenants for a significant period?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah and another vs The State1984 SCMR 1236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11
  attempt to murdercriminal revisionocular testimonynature of injuriesintent to killleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal where the petitioners were convicted under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the trial court, with their conviction and sentence subsequently maintained by the Sessions Judge and the Peshawar High Court in revision. The core legal question concerned whether a conviction for attempt to murder under section 307 can be sustained when the resulting injuries are simple in nature and certain witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not produced. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the intention, knowledge, and surrounding circumstances of the act are determinative, and actual infliction of injuries capable of causing death is not strictly essential if the act is capable of causing death in the natural course of things. The key principle laid down is that for a conviction under section 307, the nature of the actual injury resulting from the assault is secondary to the intention and capability of the act to cause death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether actual injuries capable of causing death must be inflicted to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to produce certain witnesses cited in the F.I.R. fatal to the case when ocular testimony is relied upon by the courts?
  • What role do the knowledge, intention, and surrounding circumstances play in establishing an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah alias Zaka vs The State1984 PLD Supreme Court 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-14
  Zina-bil-jabrattempt to commit offencequantum of sentencenon-adult offenderFederal Shariat CourtHudood Ordinancessentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which enhanced the sentence of a minor appellant convicted under section 18 read with section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for attempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a minor attempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr can be sentenced to a term exceeding two and a half years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that since the substantive offence for a non-adult under section 7 carries a maximum imprisonment of five years, an attempt to commit the same under section 18 attracts a maximum punishment of one-half of that term, which amounts to two and a half years. The Court laid down the principle that the special provisions governing non-adults under section 7 constitute a distinct category separate from adult offences under section 10, and attempts committed by non-adults must be computed strictly with reference to the maximum punishment prescribed in section 7 rather than section 10.

  Questions settled

  • What is the maximum sentence for a minor who attempts to commit Zina-bil-jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does an attempt to commit Zina-bil-jabr by a non-adult fall under section 7 or section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • How is the sentence for an attempt calculated under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 when the offender is a non-adult?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Khan and Another vs Mir Afsar Khan and Others1984 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-14
  criminal petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderinterested witnessescorroborationweapon recoverybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against the acquittal of the respondents by the Peshawar High Court under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular testimony and the reliability of corroboratory evidence, specifically regarding weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence was unexceptionable, noting that the interested testimony of the eye-witnesses lacked reliable corroboration due to doubts surrounding the police recovery witness and the questionable subsequent transfer of the recovered weapons as rewards to police officers. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and the Court ordered a thorough probe into the conduct of the high functionaries involved in the weapon transfers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related and interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration for a safe conviction?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses to a weapon recovery and doubts regarding the recovering officer's presence weaken the prosecution case?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order of the High Court when the appreciation of evidence is found to be unexceptionable?
  Read full judgment →