Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
- Sardar Ali vs Sher Hussain and Others1984 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 21-4-1984, whereby the High Court cancelled the bail of one co-accused but maintained the pre-trial bail granted to respondent Sher Hussain in a murder case. The core legal question was whether old age and the loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds of physical infirmity to justify the retention of bail under the relevant criminal procedure provisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had rightly considered the physical infirmity and old age of the accused in maintaining the bail order, and consequently found no reason to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the discretionary exercise of judicial power in refusing to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether old age and loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds for maintaining bail in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order maintaining bail when the High Court has properly considered physical infirmity?
- Samota vs The State1984 SCMR 1541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from close relatives of the deceased without independent corroboration and whether the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition must be dismissed, finding that the relationship of the eyewitnesses to the deceased did not impair their credibility in the absence of any demonstrable animus to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship unless animus or a motive for false substitution is established.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of close relatives of a deceased person requires mandatory independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a familial relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically detract from their credibility?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding ocular testimony without sufficient grounds?
- Samiullah Khan vs Attaullah Khan Wazir and Others1984 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the appellant had a valid locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondent through an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, given the absence of any pending or valid transfer application by the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner regarding the non-existence of a valid transfer application by the appellant were unexceptionable. Since the appellant had failed to pursue any transfer application after previous proceedings were closed and the property was subsequently transferred to the respondent on negotiation basis for the reserve price, the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the transaction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that a party without a subsisting claim or application for transfer possesses no standing to challenge the administrative disposal of evacuee property to another.
Questions settled- Does a person who has no pending application for the transfer of evacuee property possess the locus standi to challenge its transfer to another party?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner regarding the non-existence of a transfer application be interfered with without sufficient ground?
- Salimuddin vs The State1984 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court order passed in suo motu revision, which converted the appellant's conviction from Section 304-A and Section 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, significantly enhancing the sentence. The appellant had originally been convicted by a Magistrate for causing death and injuries through rash and negligent driving. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction for the enhancement of a sentence, possessed the authority to convert the nature of the conviction itself when the notice issued was limited strictly to the enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by converting the offence, as the scope of the suo motu notice was restricted to sentence enhancement only. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's original conviction and sentence, noting that remanding the matter after twenty years would be inappropriate.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, while exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction for sentence enhancement, convert the nature of the conviction itself?
- Is a High Court limited by the scope of the notice issued when exercising suo motu revisional powers?
- Does a High Court have the authority to alter the offence of conviction during a revision proceeding initiated solely for the purpose of enhancing a sentence?
- Saleem vs The ST a Te1984 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court, which altered the petitioner Saleem's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Part I of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with a fine payable as compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while upholding certain other convictions under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of a delayed first information report and the identification of the assailant responsible for the fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that the explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report was plausible given the injuries sustained by the family and apprehension of harm, and that ocular testimony sufficiently established the petitioner's role. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt and sentencing.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case when plausible explanation is provided?
- Can related eye-witnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for culpable homicide and hurt?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the identification of an assailant?
- Sajjani Abdul Majid and Others vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and Others1984 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the common question of whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory prior to instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service. Factually, no such notice was given in any of the cases. The High Court had previously held that such notice was necessary relying on earlier case law. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to notice the insertion of subsection (6) into section 25-A on 9 February 1973 by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which eliminated the requirement of notice in cases of termination. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to this statutory amendment and prior authoritative construction, an aggrieved worker could directly seek a remedy against employment termination. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
Questions settled- Is a grievance notice mandatory under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service?
- Did the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 do away with the requirement of notice for challenging termination of service under section 25-A?
- Sajawal Shah vs The State1984 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajawal Shah against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under sections 304(I), 308, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner was originally tried along with others for murder, murderous assaults, and rioting, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life and fines. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a plea of self-defence requiring reappraisal of evidence and whether a judgment of a Sessions Court not cited before the High Court could be relied upon. The Supreme Court held that it is not proper to grant leave merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised, and that a judgment of a Sessions Judge cannot be cited for the first time before the apex court when it was omitted below. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal along with the bail application.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised?
- Can a judgment of a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge be cited for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not cited before the High Court?
- Said Azam vs Hussain Shah (Rpresented by Legal Heirs) and another1984 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a subsequent transfer of mortgagee rights by the first vendee to the petitioner (second vendee) was valid and effective to defeat the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner argued that the transfer was made in recognition of his superior right within the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts established that no valid sale occurred within the period of limitation prescribed for instituting a pre-emption suit. Consequently, the subsequent transfer could not defeat the plaintiff's pre-emption claim. The Court affirmed that a sale transaction occurring after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit, or one that is not properly proved or registered, cannot be used to obstruct a pre-emptor's superior right. Leave to appeal was refused as no error of law was identified.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent transfer of property made after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption?
- Does a sale deed that is neither registered nor proved according to law confer valid title to immovable property?
- Can a second vendee defeat a pre-emptor's claim by asserting a transfer of rights that occurred after the pre-emption suit was filed?
- Safdar and another vs The State1984 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding their conviction and sentence in a murder case. The core legal question concerned the presence and legal effect of an injury found on the person of one of the appellants in relation to a plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the first appellant and section 352 against the second appellant were well-founded and supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence, and that the injury on the second appellant's leg was not relatable to the occurrence. However, noting the absence of premeditation and that the incident resulted from a sudden flare-up, the Court altered the capital sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction, along with a fine and compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an occurrence is sudden and without premeditation, and where an injury claimed by an accused in self-defence is not supported by contemporaneous material or medical evidence linking it to the incident, the sentence of death may be commuted to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether an injury found on an accused person can be linked to the occurrence when medical opinion indicates it could be due to a fall and lacks supporting surface marks?
- Does a sudden flare-up without premeditation or subsisting enmity warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt based on prompt F.I.R. and consistent ocular testimony are liable to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Saeed Alam vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, N.W. F. P. and Another1984 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal for failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The appellant, a Motor Vehicles Examiner, was dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police for misconduct. He argued that the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 governed his service and that he had exhausted the required review remedy under those rules. The core legal question was whether the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 applied to a Motor Vehicles Examiner, thereby exempting him from the standard departmental appeal requirements applicable to civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a civil servant under the N.-W. F. P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, and not a police officer subject to the Police Rules, 1975. Consequently, the appellant was required to file a departmental appeal under the N.-W. F. P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, before approaching the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as incompetent for failure to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal process.
Questions settled- Does the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 apply to a Motor Vehicles Examiner?
- Is a Motor Vehicles Examiner considered a police officer under the Police Act, 1861?
- Must a civil servant exhaust departmental appeal remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Can a mercy petition be treated as a substitute for a mandatory departmental appeal?
- Saeed Ahmad and Others vs Ghulam Nabi and Others1984 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the High Court in revision, where the petitioners had failed to deposit the probable value of the land in a pre-emption suit within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the amount fixed as the probable value and the extension of time for depositing the required sum. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the correctness of the probable value were proper, and noted that the High Court had already acted with generosity in granting an extended period of one month to deposit the remaining Zar-e-punjum. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief regarding extension of time in pre-emption matters will not be interfered with lightly when the courts below have correctly determined the probable value.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can grant further time to deposit the Zar-e-punjum in a pre-emption suit during revision proceedings?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an order of the High Court extending the time to deposit pre-emption money?
- Are concurrent findings regarding the probable value of land in a pre-emption suit open to interference without substantial grounds?
- Saee and Others vs The State1984 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals arising from a violent incident where a mob of 200-250 individuals attempted to forcibly restore land possession, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interpreted the scope of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding whether individual roles within an armed unlawful assembly could be detached from the common object of the assembly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by individualizing the criminal liability of the main attackers. The Court affirmed that members of an unlawful assembly who arm themselves with deadly weapons to achieve a common object—forcible land recovery—are vicariously liable for murder and murderous assaults committed in prosecution of that object. The principle laid down is that when an unlawful assembly is formed with the intent to use violence, and members are armed with deadly weapons, the resulting crimes are attributable to all members under Section 149, as the commission of such crimes is a likely consequence of the assembly's common object.
Questions settled- Can the criminal liability of members of an armed unlawful assembly be individualized when the assembly's common object involves the use of force?
- Does the use of deadly weapons by members of an unlawful assembly render them vicariously liable for murder committed in prosecution of the assembly's common object?
- Is it necessary to assign a specific fatal act to an individual member of an unlawful assembly to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Sadiq and others vs Mst. Fatima and others1984 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a land settlement case concerning the inheritance of one Lakha, who died in India. The core legal controversy relates to the identity, parentage, and inheritance rights of Mst. Fatima, who was recognized by the settlement authorities as the sister of Kamala and entitled to a share through Rehmat, another brother who died issueless in Pakistan. After the petitioners' writ petition challenging Mst. Fatima's parentage and inheritance right failed before the High Court, they sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to point out any legal or other infirmity regarding the concurrent findings of fact on the identity and parentage of Mst. Fatima, and that the technical points raised had been duly addressed by the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that concurrent findings of fact on parentage in settlement cases will not be interfered with absent a substantial legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted against concurrent findings of fact regarding parentage and inheritance in a land settlement case?
- Does the failure to establish a legal infirmity in the lower court's determination of identity and parentage warrant the refusal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Sa Udullah Khan and others vs Qalandar and others1984 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts holding that a disputed property transaction constituted an exchange rather than a sale, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of extrinsic evidence establishing the petitioner's contention, and given that the petitioner's witnesses were not present at the completion of the transaction, the lower courts rightly relied upon the exchange deed. The Court further ruled that a registered exchange deed cannot be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the potential price the land could fetch or the improbability of exchanging one kanal for three kanals. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction described as an exchange can be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the price the land could fetch?
- Does the improbability of exchanging one kanal of land in lieu of three kanals convert an exchange deed into a sale?
- Can a pre-emption suit succeed when the plaintiff fails to provide extrinsic evidence and witnesses who were not present at the completion of the transaction?
- S.M. Saeed vs Qamar Islam and another1984 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the appellate court’s acquittal, based on the alleged forgery of an inventory document and evidence of account clearance, was legally sustainable despite the complainant's assertion of sufficient evidence regarding entrustment and failure to return property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of entrustment and the respondent's failure to account for the property. The Court affirmed that the evidence regarding the clearance of the respondent's financial dues supported the acquittal. While upholding the acquittal, the Court expunged the appellate court's findings regarding the forgery of the inventory document, noting that the respondent had not specifically pleaded forgery or denied his signatures, and that the prosecution's case suffered from a failure to properly prove the documents in question.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court's finding of forgery be sustained when the accused has not specifically pleaded forgery or denied their signature?
- Does the failure to prove an inventory document as evidence of entrustment justify an acquittal in a criminal breach of trust case?
- Is a clearance certificate regarding financial dues sufficient evidence to rebut a charge of criminal breach of trust?
- S. M. Mohsan Zaidi vs Syed Gauhar Ali1984 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his objections in execution proceedings regarding an eviction order passed against his brothers concerning a property in Rawalpindi. The petitioner contended that upon the death of his father, the original allottee, all legal heirs including himself succeeded to the tenancy rights as statutory tenants under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and therefore the eviction order was not binding on him. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised important questions of law regarding whether all heirs of a deceased occupant succeed to the right of statutory tenancy under the said provision, particularly when the petitioner had earlier sought to be impleaded in the ejectment proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the petitioner's possession.
Questions settled- Whether all the legal heirs of a deceased occupant succeed to the right of statutory tenancy under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is an eviction order passed against only some of the legal heirs executable against another legal heir who claims independent possession?
- Whether a person claiming to be a legal heir of a deceased allottee is a necessary party to ejectment proceedings?
- S Al a H U Ddin vs The Settlement Commissioner and others1984 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the extent of the residential portion transferred to the petitioner in a composite property under settlement laws. The core legal question concerns whether a godown on the ground floor formed part of the residential portion auctioned in favour of the petitioner or was rightly auctioned subsequently to a third party, and whether a factual controversy of this nature warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the question involved is primarily one of fact, and neither the auction list nor the transfer documents clearly showed that the godown was included in the petitioner's auction. The Court ruled that the decision of the Settlement authorities on such factual questions, even if erroneous, does not render it without jurisdiction and is not ordinarily to be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the extent of a transferred property involving disputed factual boundaries can be determined in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed deprives settlement authorities of jurisdiction to deal with subsequent transfers of unincluded portions?
- Does an erroneous decision of the Settlement authorities on a question of fact render their order without jurisdiction?
- Rustam and Anothers vs Government of the Punjab1984 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, wherein the petitioners sought the allotment of disputed land as sub-tenants under Colony Notification No. 3215-79/3973C-II dated 3rd September 1979. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioners to the land and the legality of an allotment made to a third party, Muhammad Nawaz, while the petitioners' applications and a status quo order were pending. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether the allottee was entitled to the land under the notification involves a factual inquiry and scrutiny of respective claims that must be undertaken by the relevant revenue authorities. The Court dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioners could approach the competent appellate authority against the allotment, with liberty to raise the issue of limitation based on bona fide prosecution of proceedings in the superior courts. The key principle laid down is that disputes regarding the factual eligibility for land allotments under administrative notifications require primary factual scrutiny by competent departmental authorities rather than through writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can resolve conflicting factual claims regarding land allotment under a colony notification in writ jurisdiction?
- Can an aggrieved party challenge a land allotment made in favor of a third party before the competent revenue authority?
- Will the time spent in prosecuting a bona fide writ petition and petition for leave to appeal be considered by the appellate authority for limitation purposes?
- Rosh a N vs Sardara and 3 others1984 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to three respondents accused of murder under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, argued that the High Court's exercise of discretion was arbitrary because it relied on an Investigating Officer's report that had not been accepted by higher prosecution authorities. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the High Court was justified in considering the Investigating Officer's report, which was based on witness statements, as a factor creating reasonable doubt regarding the respondents' involvement, thereby necessitating further inquiry. The Court affirmed that bail is a matter of judicial discretion and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious reasoning in the High Court's order. Additionally, the Court noted that the significant delay in the trial, with no prosecution witnesses examined eleven months after the submission of the challan, provided a further ground to decline interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary grant of bail if the order is not arbitrary or capricious?
- Does an Investigating Officer's report recommending innocence constitute a valid ground for the High Court to grant bail pending further inquiry?
- Is a significant delay in the commencement of trial a relevant factor for the Supreme Court to consider when deciding whether to interfere with a bail order?
- Rehmat Ali vs Nazir Ahmad and Others1984 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Rehmat Ali sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding interested witnesses, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and delayed recoveries in a criminal trial stemming from prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the convictions and recording an acquittal, given that the complainant's testimony suffered from significant improvements and contradictions inconsistent with the medical evidence, a related witness was declared hostile, and numerous innocent persons had been falsely implicated due to deep-rooted animosity between the parties. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is riddled with material improvements and contradictions at variance with medical evidence, and is further tainted by mala fide implication of multiple innocent individuals, the appellate court's judgment of acquittal warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court when the ocular account contradicts the medical evidence?
- Does an interested witness making significant improvements to align with medical testimony render their evidence valueless for sustaining a conviction?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness when multiple co-accused have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity?
- Rehana and others vs The State1984 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to three appellants charged under Section 302/148 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants were accused of murdering the deceased, who had allegedly abducted the wife of the first appellant. While the High Court had granted bail to two co-accused on the basis that they were empty-handed, it denied bail to the appellants, attributing the fatal injuries to them as they were allegedly armed with sticks. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the deceased's body was discovered within the appellants' residence and that the First Information Report was significantly delayed. Furthermore, the court observed that the motive involving the deceased's illicit affair with the first appellant's wife was admitted. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had overlooked these critical aspects of the case. The appeal was accepted, and the appellants were granted bail, establishing that the presence of incriminating circumstances and delayed reporting are material factors in assessing bail entitlement, even in murder cases.
Questions settled- Does the discovery of a deceased's body in the accused's house constitute a relevant factor for bail consideration?
- Can a significant delay in recording the First Information Report influence the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is the distinction between accused persons based solely on the possession of weapons sufficient to deny bail to co-accused in a murder case?
- Rasul Bux vs The State1984 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court concerning the conviction of the appellant, Rasul Bux, for murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved whether evidence disbelieved against co-accused could be used to sustain the appellant's conviction, whether a conviction under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code can stand when co-accused forming the unlawful assembly are acquitted, and whether the offence constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder given the sudden and unpremeditated nature of the fight. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the fight was sudden and without premeditation, altering the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code. Furthermore, the Court held that a conviction for rioting under Section 148 cannot be sustained when the other co-accused are acquitted, reducing the requisite number of participants below five. The key principle laid down is that constructive liability and rioting charges requiring an unlawful assembly fail when the minimum statutory threshold of five persons is no longer met due to the acquittal of co-accused, and sudden fights without premeditation attract Section 304 Part II rather than murder.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for rioting can be sustained when the other co-accused constituting the unlawful assembly are acquitted?
- Does a sudden and unpremeditated fight without the weapon's dimension and weight establishing an intention to cause death warrant converting a conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can the High Court lawfully substitute a sentence of transportation for life with imprisonment for life when the offence was committed at a time when the law had not yet substituted the former with the latter?
- Raja Saleem Akhtar vs Habibullah and others1984 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance, and personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction, and the High Court of Sindh subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that no default had been committed as rent was tendered via money order and deposited in court following the refusal of rent receipts. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents, being the legal heirs and attorney of the property owner, were fully entitled to collect rent and fell within the definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(f) of the relevant rent ordinance. Consequently, the High Court was justified in finding it unnecessary to frame a specific issue or record a formal finding on the landlord-tenant relationship. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed it.
Questions settled- Whether the legal heirs or attorney of a property owner fall within the definition of 'landlord' entitled to file an ejectment application under the rent laws?
- Is it necessary for the Rent Controller to frame a specific issue on the landlord-tenant relationship where the applicants' legal authority to collect rent is established on record?
- Raja Rahim Dad and Another vs Ziaur Rehman and Others1984 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the exclusive versus common use of a staircase within a divided residential property in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, who purchased the property, claimed exclusive rights to the staircase, while the first respondent asserted it was for common use. Following the consolidation of competing suits, the trial court decreed in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the staircase's use violated their privacy and that the lower courts failed to properly weigh the Local Commissioner's report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the common use of the staircase were supported by overwhelming evidence, including records from Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when supported by credible evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the existence of a Local Commissioner's report mandate a specific outcome in a property dispute regarding common usage?
- Are findings of fact based on spot inspections and evidence by lower courts subject to appellate review in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Raja Muhammad Ferozudd1n vs Abdul Qayyum and Another1984 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which refused to enhance the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the respondent, and instead reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, which was less than a fortnight. The respondent had been convicted under Sections 427, 43, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to enhance the sentence and its subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment warranted interference. After hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court ruled that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal or principled infirmity. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that discretionary sentencing decisions by the High Court will not be disturbed absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's decision to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in the absence of any legal infirmity?
- What is the standard of review applied by the Supreme Court when considering a petition to enhance a criminal sentence?
- Can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone if the reduction does not violate any legal principles?
- Raj Muhammad vs Mst. Chan Bibi and Others1984 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to being filed in the wrong forum and subsequently rejected a request for condonation of delay. The petitioner had originally filed an appeal against a decree for the recovery of money in the Court of the District Judge, Haripur, before later approaching the High Court. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum could be condoned on the basis of a bona fide mistake by counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the forum for the appeal was not in doubt. The Court held that where the law regarding the appellate forum is clear, a mistake by counsel resulting from gross negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that no benefit of a bona fide mistake can be granted in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing an appeal be condoned when the appellant mistakenly files the appeal in the wrong forum due to counsel's negligence?
- Is a mistake regarding the correct appellate forum considered a valid ground for condonation of delay under the law of limitation?
- Rais Jeevan vs Akbar Ali and Orhers1984 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a transaction disguised as an exchange, coupled with a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged property on the same day, constitutes a 'sale' for the purposes of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the true nature of the transaction and the failure of the lower courts to draw proper inferences from vital material on record deserve consideration. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the composite effect of the concurrent mutations amounts to a sale in law and relevant precedents.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction styled as an exchange accompanied by a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged land constitutes a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Can concurrent mutations executed on the same day be construed together to determine the true nature of a property transaction?
- Whether the High Court was justified in declining interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction?
- Rai Muhammad Shafi vs Javed Ak Bar and others1984 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the custody and disposal of a motor car seized by the police in connection with a criminal case under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, who had been granted interim custody (Superdari) of the car, subsequently applied to the trial Magistrate for permission to sell the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. The Magistrate allowed the sale without recording any finding that the car was subject to speedy or natural decay and without requiring security for the sale price. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order in revision, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the trial court could permit the sale of crime property under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without establishing that the property was subject to speedy or natural decay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly set aside the order because the application and the Magistrate's order failed to disclose circumstances satisfying the requirements of section 516-A. The Court laid down the principle that an order for the sale of crime property during trial must strictly conform to the statutory conditions governing the custody and disposal of property under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a trial court permit the sale of crime property during the pendency of a trial without establishing that the property is subject to speedy or natural decay under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an omission by a Magistrate to require security for the sale price of crime property render an order under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalid?
- Rahim Dad vs The State1984 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Rahim Dad was convicted under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 after being found in a drunken state, with medical examination and chemical analysis confirming the presence of alcohol in his blood and urine. His appeal and subsequent revision petition before the Lahore High Court were dismissed. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the offence requires proof of the actual act of drinking rather than merely being found in a state of drunkenness. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, relying on its earlier view that the expression 'takes an intoxicant' defining 'drinking' in Article 6 of the Order is not restricted to an instant taking in the presence of witnesses, but also encompasses being found to have taken an intoxicant. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted no interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether being found in a state of drunkenness constitutes an offence under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the definition of drinking under Article 6 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 require the actual act of drinking to be witnessed?
- Whether the words 'takes an intoxicant' include being found to have taken an intoxicant?
- Rafiuddin and another vs Mst. Saleema Bibi1984 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the interpretation of the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land and village immovable property as provided under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The petitioners contended that the lower courts failed to correctly construe the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which delineates the classes of persons entitled to the right of pre-emption. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court found merit in the submission regarding the potential misconstruction of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law. The Court further ordered that the interim stay order previously granted on 4-2-1977 shall remain operative during the pendency of the appeal, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty for the parties to submit additional documents.
Questions settled- Does Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 correctly vest the right of pre-emption in the petitioners based on the sale of agricultural land and village immovable property?
- Did the lower courts err in their construction of the statutory provisions governing the right of pre-emption?
- Qazi Sardar Bahadar vs Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and Others1984 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged the termination of his services after overstaying his ex-Pakistan leave. Having gone abroad in June 1978, the petitioner sought multiple extensions, eventually requesting a five-year extension in March 1980. However, his services had already been terminated effective December 1979. Upon receiving notice of termination in April 1980, the petitioner did not seek reinstatement until November 1982. His subsequent departmental appeal was rejected as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal on May 22, 1983. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the matter, considering the significant delay in challenging the termination. The Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the departmental appeal was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that administrative remedies must be pursued within the prescribed statutory limitation periods and that unexplained, substantial delays in challenging termination orders preclude judicial intervention.
Questions settled- Can a service appeal be entertained when the departmental appeal is hopelessly time-barred?
- Does the failure to challenge a termination order within the prescribed limitation period preclude judicial relief?
- Qazi Muhammad Rafiq and Others vs Qazi Feroze Bakht and Others1984 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from protracted litigation concerning a decree for possession of land originally obtained by Qazi Mehr Din. Following his death during the appeals, some legal heirs were brought on record, while other claimants claiming to be heirs from another wife subsequently sought execution of the decree. The executing court dismissed their application, holding that they must file a separate suit. However, the High Court reversed this decision, ruling that their status as representatives of the decree-holder could be determined under Section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view. The core legal question was whether persons claiming to be representatives of a party can have their status determined by the executing court under Section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than filing a separate suit. The Court held that the executing court has the jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a representative of a party under Section 47(3). The key principle laid down is that questions regarding whether a person qualifies as a representative of a party for execution purposes must be determined by the executing court itself.
Questions settled- Whether the question of whether a person is the representative of a party can be determined by the executing Court under section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are claimants asserting to be legal representatives of a decree-holder required to file a separate suit to establish their claim for execution, or can it be decided during execution proceedings?
- Qazi Khurshid Alam and others vs Sardar Hidayatullah Mokal, Settlement Commissioner and others1984 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner had restored a revision petition that was previously dismissed in default, citing humanitarian grounds because some of the petitioners were a widow and her minor children. The petitioners before the Supreme Court challenged this restoration, arguing that the contesting respondents had retransferred their units from the Sialkot District after the land in dispute had already been confirmed to the petitioners and possession delivered. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court failed to account for the fact that, in addition to the widow and her minor children, there were three other adult respondents who were not entitled to the humanitarian indulgence granted. Finding substance in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the restoration of the revision petition was legally justified given the change in circumstances and the status of the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a revision petition dismissed in default be restored on humanitarian grounds?
- Does the retransfer of units by a claimant after the confirmation of land affect their standing to agitate a claim?
- Is it legally permissible to restore a petition on humanitarian grounds when some beneficiaries are adults not entitled to such indulgence?
- Qazi Faizul Haq vs N.W. F. P. through the Chief Secretary1984 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by a civil servant challenging his dismissal from service on charges of misconduct relating to the erroneous release on bail of a murder accused who had used impersonators. Following a departmental inquiry finding him guilty, the appellant was dismissed from service, and his departmental review and subsequent service tribunal appeal were unsuccessful. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to examine whether there was a procedural violation of the rules by failing to supply a copy of the inquiry report and failing to issue a second show-cause notice prior to the dismissal decision. Conceding to the established legal position of the Court requiring these procedural safeguards, the respondents did not contest the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and directed that the disciplinary proceedings resume from the stage where the inquiry report was submitted to the competent authority, while treating the appellant as under suspension.
Questions settled- Whether failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report and issue a second show-cause notice vitiates disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal?
- What is the legal effect on disciplinary proceedings when an order of dismissal is set aside due to procedural non-compliance?
- Qazi Abdur Rahman Mughal vs Abdul Wahid and Others1984 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the exclusive use of a 'Gali' (alleyway) situated between the properties of the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner sought a permanent and mandatory injunction to prevent the respondents from opening doors or water outlets into the alley, claiming exclusive ownership and usage rights based on long-standing possession. The trial court initially decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, a decision partially modified by the appellate court. The High Court subsequently allowed the respondents' appeal, finding no evidence of exclusive possession by the petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the site plan and evidence, noting that the alley was a blind alley used by both parties for access to their respective houses. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish exclusive title or possession, relying only on oral assertions against evidence showing the alley's long-term use by the respondents and the public. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that in the absence of documentary proof of exclusive ownership, a party cannot exclude neighbors from using a shared access way.
Questions settled- Does long-term usage of a Gali by one party automatically confer exclusive ownership rights over it?
- Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act 1872, does the burden of proving ownership shift to the defendant when a plaintiff claims possession?
- Can a party obtain an injunction to prevent neighbors from using a shared alleyway without proving exclusive title to the land?
- Qasim Khan vs The State1984 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, filed by Qasim Khan, challenges the sentence of death imposed for the murder of his uncle, Abid Khan. The conviction was based on the deceased's dying declaration, which was originally recorded as an F.I.R. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely to consider whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life, specifically examining whether the motive—a dispute over the deceased's purchase of the appellant's land—constituted sufficient mitigating circumstances. Upon reviewing the evidence and the appellant's statement, the Court found that the record lacked sufficient detail regarding the land transaction to establish a mitigating factor that would warrant a reduction in sentence. Consequently, the Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the sentence of death confirmed by the High Court. The judgment reaffirms that a mere assertion of motive, without substantiated details demonstrating extenuating circumstances, is insufficient to justify the imposition of the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life in a murder case.
Questions settled- Does a mere assertion of motive, without detailed evidence, constitute a sufficient ground for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a sentence of death be commuted when the record lacks sufficient details regarding the alleged mitigating circumstances?
- Qasim and Others vs The State1984 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of pre-trial bail applications by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were named in the First Information Report as being armed and participating in an unlawful assembly resulting in murder and simple injuries, are entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of alibi and lack of specific injury attribution. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, pleas of alibi cannot be conclusively evaluated and prima facie participation demonstrated through specific roles and weapon attribution in the First Information Report disentitles the accused to relief. The court dismissed the petitions, affirming that where active participation is alleged and supported by record, discretionary relief of bail is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of alibi can be conclusively determined at the bail stage to grant relief to an accused?
- Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused disentitle them to bail when they are named in the First Information Report as part of an armed unlawful assembly?
- Is a case where co-accused are armed with lethal weapons and attributed active participation considered a fit case for post-arrest bail?
- Qamar Din vs Rent Controller, Cantt. Rawalpindi and Others1984 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner (tenant) sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which had challenged an eviction order granted in favour of the respondent landlady on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant argued that the landlady merely sought rent enhancement, had sold an annexe on the premises, and that an expenditure of Rs. 35,000 on improvements converted the tenancy into a fixed term. During the hearing, it was admitted that the tenant and most of his family had been residing in England for years, leaving the premises under the control of his son-in-law. The Supreme Court observed that the tenant had effectively abandoned the premises in favour of a son-in-law who held the status of a mere licensee or sub-tenant. Finding no bona fides or grounds warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the tenant remained free to pursue his disputed monetary claim for improvements before a competent civil court without affecting the eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the prolonged residence of a tenant abroad, leaving the premises in possession of a son-in-law without a fresh tenancy, amounts to abandonment of the tenancy?
- Whether findings of fact recorded by rent authorities can be interfered with under the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether an unresolved monetary claim for improvements made by a tenant to rented premises constitutes a valid legal bar to his eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
- Qaim Khan and others vs Mst. Elahi Khanum and others1984 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing their suit on the grounds of res judicata. The dispute concerned land originally mortgaged in 1910. The heirs of the original mortgagor had previously sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, succeeding up to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a new suit claiming ownership by asserting that the mortgagors' rights had been extinguished due to the expiry of the 60-year limitation period. The trial court dismissed this subsequent suit, ruling that the issue of limitation and the nature of the mortgage had already been directly and substantially decided in the previous litigation. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the petitioners' current plea regarding the expiry of the limitation period had been explicitly raised and adjudicated in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of res judicata barred the re-litigation of these issues, thereby dismissing the petition and affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata bar a subsequent suit where the core issue of limitation was already decided in previous litigation between the same parties?
- Can a party re-litigate the issue of the expiry of a mortgage limitation period if that specific issue was adjudicated in a prior suit?
- Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Lahore vs Walter L. Mall1984 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute over whether a piece of land forms part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674. The petitioner claimed the land under Khasra No. 674, while the respondent claimed it was included in Khasra No. 673 purchased via a registered sale-deed and a subsequent rectification deed. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit for permanent injunction, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, and the revision was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court found the record and the Local Commissioner's report inconclusive regarding the precise demarcation of the disputed land. Consequently, with the agreement of the parties' counsel, the Supreme Court set aside the lower decisions, converted the petition into an appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination and further evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the disputed land forms a part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674?
- Can a case be remanded to the trial court for fresh determination when the appellate court's report and record are inconclusive?
- Punjab Road Transport Board vs Abdul Ghaffar Niazi1984 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the employer, Punjab Road Transport Board, against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 8-6-1983, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's challenge to the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal orders directing the reinstatement of the respondent employee. The core legal question concerned the validity of the respondent's termination from service after he obtained a fresh conductor's licence following the cancellation of his previous licence due to a conviction for receiving fare without issuing tickets. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time by 82 days with no application or explanation for condonation, and further noted that the High Court had already left open an avenue for the petitioner to seek the cancellation of the respondent's fresh licence on the stated grounds. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that petitions filed beyond the prescribed period without adequate explanation or an application for condonation are time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an application or explanation for condonation can be entertained?
- Does the possession of a fresh conductor's licence preclude an employer from terminating an employee's services when the previous licence was cancelled for misconduct?
- Can leave to appeal be refused when alternative legal avenues remain available to the petitioner?
- Punhal Shah and Others vs The State1984 PLD Supreme Court 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the First Information Report (FIR), the credibility of ocular evidence, and the reliability of recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that a telephonic message to the police failing to disclose a specific cognizable offence does not constitute an FIR under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; rather, the subsequent detailed statement recorded at the crime scene serves as the valid FIR. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimony, such as a slip regarding the weapon carried by an assailant, do not invalidate the entire prosecution case when the witnesses are natural and credible. Additionally, the Court ruled that where police guard the accused's residence, the absence of independent recovery witnesses does not undermine the integrity of the recovery of incriminating weapons and blood-stained clothing. The judgment reinforces principles regarding FIR registration and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Does a telephonic message to the police that does not disclose a specific cognizable offence constitute a First Information Report?
- Can minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the weapons carried by assailants invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Does the absence of independent recovery witnesses render the recovery of incriminating evidence inadmissible when the accused's premises were under police guard?
- Is a statement recorded at the crime scene by a police officer the valid First Information Report if an earlier telephonic message failed to disclose a cognizable offence?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Nawaz and Another1984 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a decree passed by the High Court in a civil suit. The respondents were originally accused in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the criminal proceedings, a truck belonging to the respondent was placed on sapurdari (custody) and specific cash sums were recovered from the accused. Although the respondents were initially convicted and the property confiscated, the appellate court subsequently set aside the conviction and sentence, directing the respondents to seek the return of the confiscated assets through civil litigation. The respondents successfully sued the Provincial Government, obtaining a decree for the value of the truck and the recovered cash. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the truck had since been recovered and was available for return. The core legal question concerns the liability of the Provincial Government for damages arising from proceedings conducted by a criminal court, specifically whether the state can be held civilly liable for property handled during criminal trial processes.
Questions settled- Can the Provincial Government be held civilly liable for the loss or value of property handled during criminal court proceedings?
- Does the recovery of property previously subject to a civil decree for its value affect the execution of that decree?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Bashir1984 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment regarding the recruitment of Junior Clerks. The core legal question was whether the enforcement of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, resulted in the implied repeal of paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual, which governed the maintenance of candidate lists for such appointments. The respondent, an apprentice Junior Clerk, challenged the Collector's decision to bypass the existing waiting list and recruit candidates directly. The Supreme Court held that the 1964 Rules did not repeal paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual. The Court reasoned that while the 1964 Rules defined 'initial recruitment' and prescribed qualifications, they failed to provide a specific mechanism or procedure for making such appointments. Conversely, paragraph 3.5 established a comprehensive code for testing, listing, and selecting candidates. Finding no repugnancy or inconsistency between the two instruments, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that prior administrative instructions remain in force where they supplement, rather than contradict, subsequent service rules that lack specific procedural provisions.
Questions settled- Does the enactment of new service rules automatically repeal prior administrative instructions governing recruitment procedures?
- Can administrative instructions regarding recruitment coexist with subsequent service rules if the latter lack specific procedural provisions?
- Does the definition of 'initial recruitment' in the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, render paragraph 3.5 of the District Office Manual redundant?
- Province of Punjab through the Deputy Director Food, Rawalpindi1984 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of Punjab sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which held that a civil servant could revoke a request for voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) at any time before actually retiring from service, even after the offer had been accepted and the civil servant had enjoyed a substantial part of the LPR. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can unilaterally withdraw or revoke an offer for voluntary retirement and LPR after it has been accepted and acted upon. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that once an option for voluntary retirement and LPR is exercised, accepted, and acted upon, creating finality and binding consequences, the civil servant cannot subsequently go back on it or revoke it. The Court applied the principle of locus paenitentiae, distinguishing cases where revocation occurred prior to acceptance.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant revoke an offer for voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement after it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does a civil servant have the right to withdraw a request for retirement at any time prior to the actual date of retirement?
- What is the applicability of the principle of locus paenitentiae in matters of voluntary retirement of civil servants?
- Prayl and Others vs Sher Muhammad and Others1984 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Sind High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which had non-suited the respondents regarding a land dispute. The trial court had dismissed the respondents' suit on the basis that the vendor, Syed Muhammad Aala, lacked the authority to sell the land due to alleged non-payment of dues to the Settlement Department. The High Court, however, observed that the petitioners had failed to raise this specific plea in their written statement, rendering the lower courts' findings legally erroneous. Furthermore, the High Court held that the execution of the sale deed was sufficiently proved by the vendor's testimony, negating the need for attesting witnesses under the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the lower courts exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding on the validity of the Settlement Department's clearance certificate, a matter exclusively within the purview of the Settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The petition was dismissed as the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a court non-suit a party on a ground not raised in the written statement?
- Is the testimony of a vendor sufficient to prove the execution of a sale deed without examining attesting witnesses under the Evidence Act?
- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to determine the legality of a clearance certificate issued by the Settlement Department?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in revision if they involve questions of law and jurisdiction?
- Pir Riaz Ali Shah vs Zamirul Haque and another1984 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave to appeal granted to examine whether a Press-note dated 24 October 1960 contravened section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and paragraph 22 of the Schedule, and whether the appellant, a local government servant, was entitled to the transfer of an evacuee house in Multan. The core legal question concerns the eligibility of an applicant relying on the extended definition of possession under the second proviso to section 2(6) of the Act and whether compliance with the condition precedent of clearing rent and public dues by the specified deadline is mandatory. The Supreme Court held that while applicants qualifying under the strict statutory definition of possession cannot be burdened with rent clearance as a pre-condition, those seeking the benefit of the extended definition of possession via notification are bound by its provisos, making the timely clearance of rent a mandatory condition precedent. Since the appellant failed to clear the rent before the property was lawfully transferred to the respondent, his subsequent compliance could not displace the completed transfer. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of clearing arrears of rent is a valid condition precedent for a person claiming the benefit of the extended definition of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Can an applicant who fails to meet the pre-conditions of the notification granting an extended definition of possession challenge a prior lawful transfer of evacuee property to a respondent?
- Does a Press-note or notification imposing rent clearance requirements conflict with section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act when applied to non-statutory possessors?
- Peer Muhammad vs Ministry of Production, Islamabad1984 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, which rejected an application for the restoration of an appeal. The petitioner, having been dismissed from service, challenged his dismissal before the Service Tribunal. During the regular hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment to contact his client, and the case was adjourned. On the adjourned date, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974. The Supreme Court heard the matter, found no plausible argument presented to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution upon the non-appearance of the appellant and their counsel?
- Does the failure to present a plausible argument to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Payo Din vs Hamidullah Khan and Another1984 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, father of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and acquitted him. The prosecution case was based on an eyewitness account of a broad daylight murder in a bazar, supported by medical evidence and recoveries. The High Court had acquitted the respondent, holding the case doubtful due to alleged enmity between the co-accused and improper conduct of the investigating officer. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's grounds for acquittal appeared to be based on a misreading of the evidence, noting that the enmity between the co-accused had been compromised and that the First Information Report was promptly recorded by another officer in the absence of the allegedly biased station house officer. Finding that the circumstances warranted re-examination, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of enmity between the co-accused when the record showed a compromise?
- Does the prompt recording of the First Information Report by an officer other than the allegedly biased investigating officer exclude the possibility of false implication?
- When can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment of the High Court?
- Partraderiet Foer M. T. Sonja & Co. and Another vs Muslim1984 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by the petitioners against an order of the High Court. During the proceedings, the parties reached a mutual agreement regarding the relief sought, which was formally submitted in writing and signed by the respective counsel for both the petitioners and the respondent. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, directing an amendment to paragraph 6 of the impugned High Court order dated 26-10-1983. The Court ordered that the distribution of the disputed amount would abide by the final decision in the suit, with the specific exception that the petitioners would be entitled to immediate payment, in priority to other claims, of such amounts as adjudicated by the trial judge following their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court mandated that this adjudication process, including the resolution of any objections, should occur as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs was issued.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal based on the mutual agreement of the parties?
- Does an agreement between parties regarding the distribution of funds in a pending suit allow for the amendment of an impugned High Court order?
- Under what circumstances can a party be granted priority payment of claims pending the final decision in a suit?
- Pakistan and Another vs Ali Kausar1984 PLD Supreme Court 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed an appeal and upheld a decree declaring the termination of the respondent's temporary service as an Assistant Drilling Engineer to be illegal. The respondent was appointed temporarily subject to the approval of the Federal Public Service Commission, and upon being found unfit by the Commission, his services were terminated. The core legal question was whether a temporary employee whose appointment is conditional upon the approval of the Public Service Commission is entitled to constitutional guarantees against dismissal or removal without a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the employment was tentative and incomplete until the fulfillment of the condition regarding the Commission's approval, and therefore the constitutional guarantees were not attracted. The Court laid down the principle that where an appointment is made subject to a precedent condition such as the approval of a service commission, the non-fulfillment of that condition brings the employment to an end without requiring formal disciplinary proceedings or attracting constitutional protections.
Questions settled- Whether an employment made subject to the approval of the Federal Public Service Commission is amenable to constitutional guarantees against termination?
- Does the termination of a tentative employee upon failing to secure approval from the Public Service Commission amount to dismissal or removal from service requiring formal disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the legal effect of terms such as 'until further orders' when the appointment is expressly subject to a precedent condition of suitability?
- Whether the advice of the Federal Public Service Commission is binding on the Government when the department has left the retention of an employee to the Commission's determination?
- Nurul Haq vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and Another1984 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against the appellant's retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114. The core legal question was whether the appellant, employed by the Frontier Co-operative Bank, qualified as a "person in government service" or "person in corporation service" under the Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had ceased to be a government servant upon his permanent transfer to the bank in 1949. Crucially, the Court determined that a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, does not constitute a "corporation" as defined in Martial Law Regulation No. 114, because it is a voluntary organization, not an institution set up or established by the government or by a special statute. Consequently, the appellant was not amenable to the Regulation. The Court ruled that actions taken without jurisdiction under such regulations are not saved by validating provisions. The appeal was allowed, and the removal order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, qualify as a 'corporation' under Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
- Is an employee of a co-operative society considered a 'person in government service' or 'person in corporation service' for the purposes of Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
- Can actions taken without jurisdiction under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 be saved by validating provisions of the Constitution?
- Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Saleem and others1984 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal seeking to assail the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint. The core legal question concerns the legality of the rejection of a plaint under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, due to the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the one-fifth probable value within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the three preceding forums regarding the failure to deposit the requisite amount. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the principle that failure to comply with statutory deposit requirements under pre-emption law justifies the rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint can be rejected under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 for failure to deposit the one-fifth probable value in time?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-compliance of statutory deposit requirements be successfully assailed without showing a legal error?
- Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Abdullah and 7 Others1984 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing his writ petition against an order of the Election Tribunal, Faisalabad. The petitioner had been declared elected as a member of the Zilla Council on 28-09-1983. Respondent No. 1 challenged the election on the ground that the petitioner was a Government servant on election day and thus disqualified. The petitioner, a Zilladar, had been absent since 29-07-1981, dismissed on 19-10-1983 retrospectively, and later had the penalty altered in appeal on 23-01-1984 to removal from service with retrospective effect from 29-07-1981 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that on the actual day of the election (28-09-1983), no order terminating his service had yet been passed, meaning he was undeniably in Government service on that crucial date. A subsequent retrospective order of removal cannot cure an existing statutory disqualification on election day, rendering the election void.
Questions settled- Can a retrospective order of removal from Government service cure a candidate's disqualification existing on the date of the election?
- Whether an employee remains in Government service for election purposes if no termination order has been passed prior to or on the election day?
- Does an Election Tribunal rightly declare an election void if the winning candidate was an un-terminated Government servant on the polling date?
- Noor Muhammad and Others vs Hashmat Ali and Another1984 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and allowed the respondents' ejectment application based on personal bona fide need. The core legal question concerns the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement under rent laws, and whether minor discrepancies in evidence constitute material contradictions. The Supreme Court held that where the lower courts committed a fallacy in appraising evidence by treating minor discrepancies as vital contradictions while ignoring the core question of reasonable requirement, the High Court was justified in re-examining the evidence and reversing the finding. The Court affirmed that while concurrent findings of fact are normally sacrosanct in second appeal, a material mistaken assumption or flawed approach to evidence warrants interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
- Do minor discrepancies in the statements of landlords regarding family members constitute material contradictions defeating a claim of bona fide requirement?
- When does an error in appraising evidence by lower courts justify re-examination of facts by an appellate court?
- Noor Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue and omits1984 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in a pre-emption matter decided by the Board of Revenue. During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record, highlighting the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to ensure all relevant certified copies are provided. The Court observed that the failure to produce essential trial court documents before the High Court and this Court contravenes procedural rules and spirit. Holding that such conduct disentitles the party to discretionary relief, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal on this ground alone, while also noting that the petition lacked merits based on the available material. The key principle laid down is that the failure of an Advocate-on-Record to place essential and relevant documents on the record constitutes a valid ground for refusing discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Is it the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record of the petition?
- Does the failure to produce relevant documents before the High Court and the Supreme Court disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
- Can leave to appeal be refused solely on the ground of failure to supply the necessary record by the Advocate-on-Record?
- Nizam Silk House vs Chairman, Sind Road Transport Corporation and others1984 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase land from the West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, but the sale was aborted because the Deputy Commissioner refused permission, citing that the land was granted to the Corporation for public utility purposes and could not be alienated. The petitioner's suit for specific performance or damages was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court, which held that the land was granted for a specific public purpose and the sale was void ab initio. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and upheld the lower courts' findings, confirming that the land was indeed granted for public utility purposes, such as constructing garages and workshops, and was required to revert to the Government if not used for those purposes. Consequently, the contract was unenforceable, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a contract for the sale of land be enforced if the land was granted for a specific public utility purpose and the sale violates that condition?
- Does a suit for specific performance lie when the underlying agreement for the sale of land is void ab initio?
- Is land granted to a public corporation for a specific purpose subject to reversion to the Government if the purpose is no longer served?
- Nisar Ahmad and Others vs District Judge, Muzaffargarh and Others1984 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, occupants of a property in Muzaffargarh, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default, damage, and personal need, while petitioner Nisar Ahmad denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming to be a co-sharer based on a will executed by the widow of a co-transferee's brother. The Rent Controller and District Judge both found against the petitioners and held the relationship existed. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller's finding on the disputed title and relationship could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and how a claim based on a will should be addressed. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted within jurisdiction in deciding the existence of the relationship and such finding was not open to reversal in constitutional jurisdiction, but modified the order to allow the petitioner an opportunity to establish his claim of title in a court of plenary jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the finding of a Rent Controller regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is amenable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a tenant who claims title to the property under a will be relegated to a court of plenary jurisdiction to establish his claim?
- Does the Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to decide the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant after inviting evidence from both parties?
- Niaz Ali and other vs Sultan Ali and other1984 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of Intra-Court Appeals by the High Court. The petitioners had originally filed mukhbari applications against the respondents regarding land claims in Village Zafarwal, which were dismissed by the relevant Settlement authorities. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioners sought relief through writ petitions in the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Further appeals filed by the petitioners in the form of Intra-Court Appeals were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel. The Court observed that the petitioners' mukhbari applications had been consistently rejected by the Settlement authorities and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for the High Court to have decided otherwise. Finding no merit in the petitions or any justification for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in both petitions.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a mukhbari application by Settlement authorities provide sufficient grounds for Supreme Court interference after concurrent findings by the High Court?
- Is leave to appeal warranted when a petitioner fails to establish any legal error in the impugned judgment of the High Court?
- Niaz Ahmad and Others vs Ghulam Abbas Bhatti and Othrrs1984 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an application for the ejectment of a tenant. The petitioners sought eviction for bona fide personal use, but the tenant successfully argued that the tenancy, based on an oral agreement for ten years, was still subsisting, rendering the application premature under the first proviso to Section 13(3)(ii)(c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioners contended that the oral lease was invalid under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, which requires a registered instrument for leases exceeding one year, and thus the proviso protecting the tenant should not apply. The High Court rejected this, holding that the Rent Restriction Ordinance overrides the Transfer of Property Act regarding ejectment procedures. The Supreme Court, noting the legal significance of whether general laws governing the validity of tenancy agreements are excluded by the Rent Restriction Ordinance, granted leave to appeal. The Court specifically identified the need to re-examine the correctness of the precedent established in Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Ahmad.
Questions settled- Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance exclude the application of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding the validity of tenancy agreements?
- Is an oral agreement for a lease exceeding one year valid for the purpose of claiming protection under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Must a tenancy agreement conform to general laws like the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to be considered a valid agreement under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Niaz Ahmad and Others vs Ghulam Abbas Bhatti and Others1984 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants filed an application for the ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop on the grounds of personal need and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, and subsequent appeals and writ petitions filed by the appellants in the Lahore High Court were also dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the application of the rent restriction law and tenancy agreements. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below established the existence of a valid agreement for a specified tenancy period of ten years during which eviction could not be sought, and further noted that the appellants failed to establish their bona fide personal requirement for the premises. Consequently, the Supreme Court withdrew the leave to appeal and dismissed the proceedings, affirming the lower courts' decisions upholding the tenancy.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek ejectment of a tenant before the expiry of a tenancy agreed upon for a specified period?
- Whether oral evidence is admissible to prove a tenancy agreement when its existence is contested?
- Does the failure to establish bona fide personal requirement defeat an ejectment application?
- Niamat and Another vs Allah Banda and Another1984 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal examines whether the High Court of Lahore was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of evacuee property under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the limits of writ jurisdiction in reversing findings of fact involving disputed records and alleged tampering by settlement officials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with well-considered findings of fact by specialized settlement authorities, which were supported by survey registers and evidence of continuous possession, especially where the auction purchaser's bid-sheet contained material discrepancies and tampering. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact recorded by specialized administrative tribunals based on record custodianship should not be lightly disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction unless the conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence. Furthermore, technical objections regarding the abatement of appeals due to delayed substitution of legal representatives in the Supreme Court are governed by specific court rules rather than automatic provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by Settlement Authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an appeal before the Supreme Court automatically abate upon the death of a respondent if legal representatives are not impleaded within time?
- How should admissions made by an illiterate litigant resulting from departmental tampering of records be construed?
- Nazir Hussain vs Taj Muhammad and another1984 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on a registered sale deed. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which decision was successively upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the Peshawar High Court in second appeal. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the lower courts properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence in determining this relationship. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the respondent established ownership via a registered sale deed and supporting testimony, whereas the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of inheritance or ownership through a dower deed. Leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, supported by documentary and oral evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the contesting party fails to substantiate its contrary claims.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does the failure to produce a claimed dower deed undermine a tenant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a registered sale deed sufficient to support a finding of ownership in rent restriction proceedings?
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1984 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by special leave, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the appellant's death sentence for murder. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant entered the house of the deceased at night, lit a torch, engaged in a dialogue, and fatally shot the deceased due to a family dispute over the marriage of the deceased's daughter. The Supreme Court re-appraised the ocular testimony and identified serious flaws concerning the identification of the assailant at night, the artificial introduction of a lighted torch and dialogue to establish identity, the false implication and subsequent dropping of a second accused, and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. Holding that the evidence left grave doubt regarding the true identity of the assailant and that an assassin would not ordinarily proclaim his identity, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the identification of an accused at night solely through a lighted torch and alleged voice recognition is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction?
- Does the false implication or doubtful identification of a co-accused cast serious doubt on the entire prosecution case against the main accused?
- Whether an assassin stealthily committing a crime at night would normally proclaim his name and identity to the victims?
- Nazir Ahmad and Another vs Ghulam Rasul and Others1984 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the disputed nature of a property in Faisalabad, previously transferred as a house to the predecessor of the private respondents and subsequently auctioned as a shop to the petitioners. The core legal question involved whether the High Court and settlement authorities correctly determined the property to be a house, and whether an intra-court appeal was competent against the dismissal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court rightly concluded upon thorough examination of evidence that the property was a house, and that the intra-court appeal was barred under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that findings of fact by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction based on proper reasoning do not warrant interference.
Questions settled- Whether an intra-court appeal is competent against an order dismissing a writ petition arising from proceedings where the original order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was appealable?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a factual determination made by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction regarding the character of a disputed property?
- Whether the prior transfer of a property as a house holds the field when subsequent settlement proceedings establish its correct character?
- Nazim Khan and 2 Others vs The State1984 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of three brothers under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, where the trial court and High Court had reached conflicting conclusions regarding the reliability of evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was based on established principles for the safe administration of criminal justice, specifically regarding the credibility of chance witnesses, the integrity of a dying declaration, and the weight of abscondence as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities. The Court found that the dying declaration was suspect, having been recorded at a police station in the presence of relatives, and that the eye-witnesses were unreliable chance witnesses whose testimony contained material contradictions. The Court rejected the High Court's hypothesis that such contradictions were merely police recording errors. Emphasizing that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, the Court set aside the convictions. The judgment reaffirms that abscondence alone cannot corroborate a weak case and that dying declarations recorded in the presence of interested relatives are less credible.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration recorded at a police station in the presence of relatives considered reliable?
- Does the abscondence of an accused provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction when the prosecution case is otherwise weak?
- Should material contradictions in witness statements be excused as mere misunderstandings by the police officer recording the statement?
- What is the evidentiary value of the testimony of chance witnesses in a criminal trial?
- Nazar Muhammad vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha and others1984 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property portions within a Sarai in Sargodha under settlement laws. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred specific ground-floor and first-floor rooms to the petitioner and respondent, respectively. Following an appeal, the petitioner obtained a vertical division of the property, cancelling the respondent's transfer. After protracted litigation, including a remand by the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer order, citing that the rooms in the respondent's occupation had been improperly transferred to the petitioner, who lacked access to the first floor. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, which upheld the Settlement Commissioner's decision. The Supreme Court, in this petition for leave to appeal, rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's failure to file a transfer form, noting the petitioner's own admission of the respondent's N.C.H. Form filing. The Court further held that the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.) did not preclude the settlement authorities from reopening the matter under the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities reopen a transfer matter after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document?
- Does an admission in a memorandum of appeal regarding the filing of a transfer form preclude a party from later contesting that the form was not filed?
- Nazakat Ali vs Ashiq Hussain and Others1984 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents who had been previously convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghazanfar Ali. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the acquittal order and whether the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, particularly given the false implication of one of the accused and other material discrepancies in the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the false implication of an accused person and the fabrication of recoveries react on the prosecution case as a whole, rendering ocular testimony untrustworthy without reliable corroboration. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the false implication of one accused affects the credibility of the prosecution case as a whole against the remaining co-accused?
- Can ocular testimony be relied upon without corroboration when material doubts are cast on the presence of eyewitnesses?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment of acquittal based on a proper appraisal of evidence and doubtful circumstances?
- Nawab Begum and another vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and another1984 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an urban settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a building to the Lahore Municipal Corporation for use as a school, against which the petitioners sought the transfer of a small portion in their possession through a C.H. Form. The Lahore High Court refused to grant relief in its writ jurisdiction, holding that the portion was inseparable from the main building and that its transfer for residential purposes would be detrimental to the school. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of the property in preference to a local institution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction was fully justified given that the C.H. Form covered only a part of the school building. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court will not be interfered with where the refusal to grant relief is justified by the indivisible nature of the public property in dispute, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's refusal to grant relief in its discretionary writ jurisdiction is justified when the property in dispute is indivisible and meant for a public school?
- Does a C.H. Form application for a part of a building override the transfer of the main building as an inseparable school property?
- When will the Supreme Court refuse to grant leave to appeal in urban settlement matters concerning discretionary relief?
- National Radio Telecommunication Corporation vs The Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation (N.R.T.C.), sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. A settlement regarding house rent allowance had been reached between the petitioner and the respondent workers' union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. A dispute arose over the interpretation of 'basic wages' in the settlement, prompting the respondent to file a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner objected, claiming exemption under section 1(3)(a) of the Ordinance as an establishment rendering services connected with defence, and argued that section 34 rather than section 50 was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce evidence before the lower forums to substantiate its factual plea of exemption, noting its prior conduct of negotiating under the Ordinance. It further held that a reference under section 50 was competent for interpreting the disputed settlement clause, and that 'basic wages' had a clear identity distinct from the minimum of the revised national pay scale. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether an establishment rendering services in connection with defence is exempt from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance under section 1(3)(a) when it has previously participated in proceedings under the same Ordinance?
- Is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance competent for resolving a dispute regarding the interpretation of a settlement?
- Can the expression 'basic wages' in a settlement between an employer and a collective bargaining agent be construed to mean the minimum of the revised national pay scale?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs N/A1984 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of a Special Judge, which held that the counsel for the complainant in a case under section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is not competent to independently file an application for the re-summoning of prosecution witnesses under section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a private complainant's counsel possesses the independent locus standi to conduct the prosecution or file applications in trials before a Special Judge without the active direction or authorization of the Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, prosecutions before a Special Judge must be conducted by the appointed Public Prosecutor, and private counsel can only assist and not act independently, to avoid confusion. The key principle laid down is that while criminal acts offend both society and the individual, the State's representative alone remains in charge of the prosecution, though the State may appoint a complainant's counsel as a Special Public Prosecutor in suitable cases where necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the counsel for a private complainant has the independent locus standi to file applications and conduct prosecution in a trial before a Special Judge?
- Does section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, require the prosecution before a Special Judge to be exclusively conducted by a Public Prosecutor?
- Can a private counsel act independently of the Public Prosecutor in criminal proceedings without a formal appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor?
- What is the role of a complainant's counsel vis-a-vis the Public Prosecutor during the conduct of a criminal trial?
- Nasir Iftikhar vs The State1984 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that since the High Court had acquitted his co-accused by rejecting the prosecution evidence, the same evidence should have been discarded regarding him. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of a single eyewitness when other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and the co-accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was properly recorded. The Court affirmed that the testimony of a disinterested eyewitness, which remained unshaken during cross-examination and aligned with medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries, provided a sufficient basis for conviction. The Court emphasized that the rejection of evidence against one accused does not automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case against another, provided the remaining evidence is credible and corroborated. The Court found the eyewitness account reliable and the motive established, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness if other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the rejection of prosecution evidence automatically entitle the remaining accused to an acquittal?
- Is the testimony of an eyewitness sufficient to support a conviction when corroborated by medical evidence?
- Nasir Hamad vs The Secretary, Ministry of Information and another1984 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner against his premature retirement from the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The petitioner, who originally served in Radio Pakistan and was later transferred to the newly established Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act 1973, was retired by the Chairman of the Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirement from Service) Regulations 1980 after completing 25 years of qualifying service overall. The core legal questions involve whether the 25 years of service required for premature retirement under the 1980 Regulations must be served exclusively within the Corporation or could include prior service in Radio Pakistan, whether the Chairman of the Corporation was the competent authority, and whether the petition was barred by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these important questions, holding that the legal issues raised merit detailed consideration by the Court.
Questions settled- Whether the 25 years of service qualifying for pension under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirementจาก Service) Regulations 1980 must be accumulated exclusively within the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation or can include prior service rendered in Radio Pakistan?
- Whether the Chairman of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is the competent authority to retire an employee whose prior service was rendered under the Federal Government in Radio Pakistan?
- Whether a writ petition challenging an order of premature retirement of an employee transferred from Radio Pakistan to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is barred by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order?
- Naseer Ahmad vs Arshad Ahmad1984 PLD Supreme Court 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner sought to pre-empt a sale, alleging the sale price was fictitiously inflated. The respondent-vendee contended that the petitioner had waived his right of pre-emption by refusing an offer to purchase the land at the same price through a Panchayat prior to the sale. The trial court and the district court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the absence of a formal notice under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, precluded a finding of waiver. However, the High Court reversed this, relying on the principle that pre-emption rights can be waived through conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the right of pre-emption can be waived before the actual sale, either by express refusal or clear conduct indicating a lack of interest. The Court emphasized that pre-emption is a predatory right, and statutory provisions regarding waiver should be interpreted broadly to prevent mala fide litigation where pre-emptors wait for property values to appreciate before filing suit.
Questions settled- Can a right of pre-emption be waived before the actual sale of the property takes place?
- Is a formal notice under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the exclusive method for establishing the waiver of a pre-emption right?
- Does the conduct of a pre-emptor, such as refusing a prior offer to purchase, constitute a valid waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Naseebullah vs Subedar Jan Muhammad1984 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the High Court of Baluchistan which allowed a constitutional petition and set aside the orders of the Returning Officer and the appellate authority rejecting respondent No. 3's nomination papers. The core legal question concerned the validity of the rejection of nomination papers based on a purported mismatch between the proposer's signatures in English and those on his Identity Card, despite the proposer filing unchallenged affidavits affirming his signatures. The Supreme Court held that since the proposer's affidavit owning his signatures went unchallenged by the election authorities before the High Court, the matter resolved itself into a question of fact, and the High Court rightly granted relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision to set aside the rejection and order a fresh election.
Questions settled- Whether nomination papers can be rejected solely on the ground of a signature mismatch when the proposer files an unchallenged affidavit owning the signature?
- Does an unchallenged affidavit regarding the identity of a proposer convert the matter into a question of fact?
- Naja Ba T vs Muhammad Khan and another1984 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to two respondents accused of committing Zina. The petitioner, the brother of the alleged victim, challenged the bail grant, arguing that the offence was prima facie established by the Chemical Examiner’s report confirming the presence of semen and witness testimony. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed that while the Chemical Examiner’s report indicated the presence of semen, the alleged victim was a married woman whose husband had raised no grievance regarding her conduct despite allegations of long-term adultery. Furthermore, the Court noted a background of enmity between the alleged victim and her close relatives. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the bail order.
Questions settled- Does the presence of semen in a Chemical Examiner's report automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail in a Zina case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretion to grant bail where no legal infirmity is demonstrated?
- Is the absence of a complaint from a husband regarding his wife's alleged adultery a relevant factor in bail proceedings?
- Naimat Ullah and others vs Government of the Punjab1984 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, appointed as lecturers in Municipal Degree College, Burewala in 1964, challenged a Government of Punjab notification dated 19-3-1977 regarding the upgrading and allocation of posts for Assistant Professors and Professors following the nationalization of the college. They contended that the notification violated the terms of nationalization and provincialization and unlawfully discriminated against the staff of provincialized and nationalized colleges by allocating only two posts of professors to provincialized colleges instead of the eleven posts to which they were allegedly entitled. The core legal question concerned whether the notification discriminating against the staff of nationalized and provincialized colleges regarding the allocation of upgraded posts was lawful. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contention regarding discrimination and contravention of the nationalization scheme, holding that the petition raised substantial questions requiring a full hearing and ordering leave upon payment of security.
Questions settled- Whether the government notification allocating upgraded posts contravenes the terms of nationalization of colleges?
- Does the allocation of a disproportionate number of professor posts to provincialized colleges amount to unlawful discrimination against their staff?
- Naik Alam vs District Judge, Faisalabad and Others1984 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, arising from a conflict of judicial opinion within the Lahore High Court regarding the powers of a Rent Controller during execution proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether, under Section 17 (as amended) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition during the execution of an eviction order, similar to the powers held by an ordinary executing court. The petitioner contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court, which denied such jurisdiction, conflicted with a prior decision of the same Court in Malik Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Saleem. Recognizing this conflict of views on a significant procedural question, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to settle the matter authoritatively. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court issued an interim order restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition while executing an order of eviction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller in execution proceedings equivalent to that of an ordinary executing court?
- Nadir Shan and Another vs The State1984 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's judgment upholding the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, provided by interested witnesses in a case marked by long-standing enmity, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's version improbable, noting that the witnesses' claims of evading gunfire without cover were unbelievable and that the testimony of the alleged independent witness was riddled with improvements and contradictions. The Court held that in cases of deep-seated enmity, ocular testimony requires independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used to bolster a witness's credibility; it is admissible only to highlight contradictions in their evidence. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, and set aside their convictions.
Questions settled- Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to bolster the credibility of a prosecution witness?
- Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony in cases involving long-standing enmity between parties?
- Does the failure of witnesses to explain how they evaded gunfire from a close distance render their testimony unreliable?
- Nadeem Ahmad vs The Principal/Chairman, Admission Board, King1984 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil petitions for special leave to appeal arising from the cancellation of the petitioners' admission to the First Year M.B.,B.S. Class of the Medical Colleges of the Punjab for the academic year 1981-82. The petitioners were admitted to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, but their admissions were subsequently cancelled by the Principal on the grounds that they had appeared in an intermediate examination in 1979 (Spring) after passing it in 1978, which they allegedly were not eligible to do, and that they had concealed this fact in their admission affidavits by only disclosing examinations taken in 1978 and 1980. The core legal question concerns whether there is any impediment preventing a student from appearing in the intermediate examination again from a different board, and how examinations taken in parts across multiple years should be computed. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals for an early hearing, noting that the issues relating to admission to educational institutions require prompt consideration.
Questions settled- Whether a student who has passed the Intermediate Examination from one board is eligible to appear in the Intermediate Examination again from a different board?
- How should an Intermediate Examination cleared in parts across different years be treated for the purpose of determining the year of passing?
- Does the failure to mention an intermediate examination attempt taken in parts constitute concealment of material facts warranting the cancellation of admission?
- Nabi Khan and Others vs Ghulam Murtaza and Another1984 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed civil revisions filed by unsuccessful objectors to the execution of a pre-emption decree. The petitioners, who were not parties to the original pre-emption suit, resisted the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, claiming ownership of houses built on the disputed evacuee land and asserting rights as transferees under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners could resist execution based on their possession and whether the failure to formally frame issues in the execution proceedings invalidated the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having entered possession as tenants of the evacuees, could not claim adverse possession or title against the successors-in-interest of the evacuee owners. Furthermore, the Court held that the absence of formally framed issues did not invalidate the proceedings, as the grounds of objection were clearly enumerated and fully adjudicated upon evidence. The Court affirmed that civil courts cannot interfere with allotments made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958.
Questions settled- Can a tenant of evacuee property claim adverse possession against the successor-in-interest of the evacuee owner?
- Does the failure to formally frame issues in execution proceedings invalidate the judgment if the grounds of objection were clearly enumerated and adjudicated?
- Can a civil court examine the entitlement of a party under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Naazir Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1984 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals, Yaqub Ali Shah and Sabir Hussain, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court and the Lahore High Court had upheld the convictions and sentences, including a death sentence for the primary appellant, Naazir Hussain. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the motive. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence of the eye-witness, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court held that the motive—accusations of immorality leveled by the deceased against the sister of the appellants—constituted a significant extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court ruled that the maximum penalty of death was not justified. The holding reduced the death sentence of the primary appellant to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the convictions and sentences for the other appellants, and increased the fine imposed on the primary appellant to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a motive based on accusations of immorality against a family member constitute an extenuating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life if it finds the maximum penalty unjustified by the circumstances?
- Is it permissible to order the entire amount of a fine to be paid to the heirs of the deceased in lieu of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muzaffar Khan vs Mst. Roshan Jan and Others1984 PLD Supreme Court 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
A civil appeal challenged the validity of a gift deed executed by a male owner in favor of his sisters, based on the contention that customary law restricted his power to alienate ancestral property. The core legal question was whether property inherited under customary law prior to the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, remained subject to customary restrictions on alienation, or if the Shariat Acts applied retrospectively to grant full ownership rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 1935 Act is retrospective in effect, meaning the deceased is deemed to have died under the domain of Muslim Law regardless of the date of death. Furthermore, the Court noted that the amendment to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, following the Federal Shariat Court's ruling, removed the clause subjecting the Act to other enactments. Consequently, customary restrictions on the alienation of property inherited by a full owner no longer exist, and the appellant lacked the legal standing to challenge the gift.
Questions settled- Is the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, retrospective in its application to succession?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, permit customary restrictions on the alienation of property inherited by a full owner?
- What is the effect of the removal of the phrase 'subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force' from the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- Muzaffar Hussain vs The State1984 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioner, Muzaffar Hussain, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence and imprisonment, respectively. While the High Court acquitted the co-accused, it maintained the petitioner's conviction, reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses, particularly when the recovery evidence was discarded and co-accused were acquitted on similar grounds. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that the presence of the injured eye-witnesses was beyond doubt, providing sufficient basis for conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused. The petition was dismissed, though the Court directed that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses even if co-accused are acquitted due to lack of corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of interested testimony automatically necessitate the acquittal of a petitioner convicted on the same evidence?
- Is the presence of injured witnesses sufficient to establish their credibility in a criminal trial?
- Mushtaq Ahmed Khan vs Khawaja Mustafaul Hassan1984 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sind, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, given that the landlord's family comprised ten members and that the landlord suffered from arthritis, making it difficult to climb stairs to the first floor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal requirement were sustainable and based on sufficient evidence, noting that the existing four rooms on the first floor were inadequate for a large family of ten members. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by statutory forums regarding personal bona fide requirement are normally within their exclusive jurisdiction to determine conclusively, and findings of fact will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding personal requirement of a landlord can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is medical evidence mandatory to establish a landlord's physical ailment pleaded as part of personal bona fide requirement?
- Whether a family size of ten members residing in four rooms sufficiently establishes bona fide personal requirement for additional premises?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The Administrator, Residual Property and Others1984 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his writ petition. The dispute concerned the transfer of a Deorhi and courtyard forming part of a composite building comprising shops on the ground floor and a residential unit on the first floor. The petitioner, who was transferred a shop on the ground floor, asserted that the Deorhi and courtyard were included in his original transfer order dated 4-4-1973, making them unavailable for subsequent transfer to respondent No. 3. However, both the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator, Residual Property, concluded that only the shop consisting of two rooms was transferred to the petitioner and that he lacked physical possession of or link to the Deorhi and courtyard. The Lahore High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent factual findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that factual findings regarding physical possession and scope of transfer orders cannot be re-agitated where unsupported by the initial transfer record. The leave petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding physical possession and the scope of a property transfer order can be interfered with in extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
- Can a claim to additional property be sustained if the initial transfer order contains no mention of such property?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Afzal and Others1984 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents shot the deceased, Muhammad Siddiq, and stole his rifle and personal belongings. The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, specifically the ocular testimony and forensic recoveries, was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal defects: the eye-witnesses materially changed their version of events to align with medical evidence; the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the weapon used; the recovery of the crime empty was suspicious due to the sequence of dates suggesting fabrication; and the state of the deceased's stomach contents contradicted the alleged time of occurrence. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and suspicious forensic timelines, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the material improvement of a witness's statement to align with medical evidence undermine the credibility of the ocular account?
- Can the recovery of crime empties be considered unreliable if the timeline of submission to the forensic laboratory suggests post-recovery fabrication?
- Does the state of a deceased's stomach contents at the time of post-mortem examination serve as a reliable indicator to challenge the alleged time of occurrence?
- Is an appellate court justified in maintaining an acquittal when the prosecution's case is riddled with significant factual inconsistencies?
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Ahmed Bux1984 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had ordered the petitioner tenant to deposit arrears and future rent under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance. Upon non-compliance, the Controller struck off the tenant's defense and ordered ejectment on merits. The High Court affirmed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his counsel was absent when the deposit order was passed, that arrears covered by previous proceedings were improperly included, and that the Controller lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the record clearly noted the presence of the petitioner's counsel, that the period of arrears was not shown to overlap or be time-barred, and that the plea of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised in the lower forums and could not be entertained for the first time.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Rent Controller be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if not raised earlier?
- Whether the striking off of a tenant's defence under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is valid where the order of deposit was passed in the recorded presence of the tenant's counsel?
- Musa Khan vs The Judge Family Court and Another1984 SCMR 1052(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner husband's constitutional petition arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court and whether valid grounds existed for the grant of khula to the respondent wife. The Supreme Court observed that both issues were concluded by findings of fact recorded by the lower forums. Holding that the High Court's reluctance to interfere with factual findings in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that concurrent or concluded findings of fact by subordinate tribunals in matrimonial matters are generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction or on further appeal unless a patent illegality or jurisdictional defect is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the High Court should re-examine findings of fact relating to the grant of khula in a constitutional petition?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a High Court judgment refusing to disturb factual findings in a matrimonial matter?
- Murid Hussain and Others vs Ghulam Ahmad alias Ghulam Muhammad1984 PLD Supreme Court 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural land gifted by Ahmad Hussain to his fiancee, Mst. Saeed Fatima, shortly before their marriage in 1957. Both parties tragically committed suicide shortly after their marriage. The core legal question was whether the gift made prior to the marriage (nikah) was complete without formal delivery of possession and acceptance, and whether subsequent collection of rents by the donor husband negated the completion of the gift. The Supreme Court held that although gifts made before nikah ordinarily require proof of delivery of possession, the specific circumstances—wherein the gift was made in lieu of dower, the marriage followed shortly, and the couple remained deeply attached until their joint demise—rendered the gift complete as Hiba-bil-iwaz. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court correctly restored the trial court's decree in favour of the donee's parents, laying down the principle that the strict presumption regarding pre-nikah gifts of possession can be satisfied by surrounding circumstances demonstrating the donor's unwavering intent and subsequent marital unity.
Questions settled- Whether a gift made by a person to his fiancee before nikah requires proof of delivery of possession to be complete?
- Does the collection of rents by a husband from land gifted to his wife raise a presumption that he held it on his own behalf?
- Whether a gift in lieu of dower can be treated as Hiba-bil-iwaz exempting the strict requirements of delivery of possession under specific circumstances?
- Murad Ali vs Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation1984 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to purchase agricultural land previously allotted to a party whose allotment was subsequently cancelled due to excess entitlement. The respondent, having purchased land from the original allottee, sought to purchase the land, as did the petitioner, who was in actual possession as a tenant at will. The core legal question is the interpretation of the phrase 'land occupied by any person' as found in the proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Specifically, the Court must determine whether this statutory language refers to the original allottee or purchaser, or to the tenant in actual physical occupation of the land. Finding that this issue is similar to a question pending in another matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the interpretation of the statutory provision regarding the right of first offer for sale to occupants of agricultural land.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'land occupied by any person' in the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 refer to the original allottee or the tenant in actual occupation?
- Who is entitled to the first offer of sale for agricultural land under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Muqarrab Khan Niazi vs Secretary, Ministry of Information and Others1984 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the petitioner's reversion from the post of Senior Broadcast Engineer to Broadcast Engineer under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the rejection of a departmental representation, and whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly found the appeal to be barred by time, noting that even if the communication regarding the rejection of the representation was not received, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed 120 days from the lodging of the representation as established by precedent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by limitation if filed beyond the prescribed period from the rejection of a departmental representation?
- When does time begin to run for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal if no communication regarding the disposal of a departmental representation is received?
- Municipal Committee, Lyallp Ur vs Burmah Shell Oil Storage &1984 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment declaring a municipal demand for octroi duty unlawful. The Municipal Committee, Lyallpur, sought to recover octroi charges from Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited, alleging that the company violated the conditions of the 'Re-export Pass System' by supplying petroleum products to 'non-company premises' outside municipal limits. The core legal question was whether the Municipality could impose octroi duty on this basis and whether it could subsequently justify the demand on alternative grounds, such as the location where the sale transaction was completed. The Supreme Court held that the Municipality was bound by the specific grounds cited in its original demand notice. Since the allegation of supplying to 'non-company premises' was insufficient in law to create liability for octroi, the demand was invalid. The Court affirmed that an authority cannot justify an impugned action on grounds other than those forming the foundation of the original departmental proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the legality of a tax demand must be assessed based on the reasons originally provided by the levying authority.
Questions settled- Can a municipal authority justify a tax demand on grounds other than those originally stated in the demand notice?
- Does the supply of goods to non-company premises outside municipal limits automatically invalidate the use of a re-export pass system?
- Is the determination of the place of sale for octroi purposes a question of fact dependent on the specific terms of the contract?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs TkiE District Judge and Others1984 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner had initiated a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of the disputed property based on adverse possession, while simultaneously and inconsistently claiming to have purchased the property. The trial court dismissed the suit after deciding the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner, and the lower appellate court affirmed this decision. The core legal question before the High Court and the Supreme Court was whether findings of fact regarding adverse possession could be re-examined in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below were rightly found by the High Court to be outside the purview of revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact and concurrent factual determinations cannot be disturbed by a revisional court.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Whether a revisional court can interfere with findings of fact determined by the courts below?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The District Judge and Others1984 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner. The underlying litigation originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession, wherein the petitioner inconsistently claimed to have purchased the disputed property. The respondent contested the claim, asserting that the petitioner was merely a tenant and that the suit was a retaliatory measure against pending ejectment proceedings. The trial court decided the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner and dismissed the suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the District Judge in appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application on the grounds that the contentions raised involved findings of fact, which were not amenable to interference under revisional jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the controversy pertained strictly to questions of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that no grounds existed for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession maintainable when the plaintiff also claims title through purchase?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal1984 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal against an order of ejectment. The ejectment was sought on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge reversed the findings and ordered ejectment, which the High Court upheld. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement and whether default in rent justified ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the landlord sufficiently proved personal requirement and a 13-month default in rent, and clarified that the statutory reference to occupation of another building pertains to a building owned by the landlord rather than rented accommodation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower appellate and high courts, while granting the tenant four months to vacate upon continued payment of rent.
Questions settled- Whether occupation of another building under the relevant rent restriction law refers to a building owned by the landlord or rented accommodation?
- Does a proven default in rent for a significant period preclude the exercise of discretion in favour of the tenant?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in a rent matter?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Feroze Din1984 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition against concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and default in rent, concurrently reached by the lower forums, could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings, arrived at after affording full opportunity to lead evidence, were unexceptionable and declined to interfere. The key principle laid down is that the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction will not disturb concurrent findings of fact of rent forums unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect or perversity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of rent forums in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a claim of adverse possession against the landlord negate the relationship of landlord and tenant in rent proceedings?
- Mumtaz and 3 Others vs Mansoor Ahmad and Another1984 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' criminal revision against the trial court's order summoning them as accused in a private complaint case under Sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a police report placing several initial accused in Column No. 2 and introducing two new accused, the complainant filed a private complaint, leading to the petitioners being summoned after an inquiry. The core legal question was what procedure a trial court must adopt when a private complaint case and a police challan case arise out of the same occurrence with differing accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's direction that the private complaint case be tried first. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Nur Elahi v. State, holding that where the versions or accused differ between a challan case and a private complaint, the complaint case should be taken up first, with witnesses from the challan case summoned as court witnesses to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether a private complaint case and a police challan case arising out of the same occurrence must be tried jointly or sequentially?
- What is the proper trial procedure to be followed when the police challan and a private complaint contain different sets of accused persons?
- Whether a trial court has the lawful authority to summon accused persons named in a private complaint even if they were placed in Column No. 2 of the police challan?
- Mukhtar Ali vs Muhammad Aslam and Others1984 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special lease arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the convictions and sentences of the respondents. Leave was granted to consider whether the High Court acted on correct judicial principles in concluding that the incident constituted a free fight and that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The dispute originated from a property dispute and prior bad relations leading to a violent clash resulting in the death of Muhammad Sadiq and injuries to multiple individuals. The trial court had convicted various respondents under murder and related charges, imposing capital punishment and prison sentences. Upon appeal, the High Court re-appraised the evidence, found the eyewitness testimony to be of a partisan nature, and partly relied on the accused's statement that a sudden fight had broken out without premeditation, thereby altering the murder conviction to one under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code and adjusting individual liabilities. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the High Court's findings, noting also that the convicts had already served their sentences. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court acted on correct judicial principles in concluding that the incident was a free fight entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can individual criminal liability be substituted for vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of corroboratory evidence in a sudden fight?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in reappraising evidence and altering convictions from murder to culpable homicide based on admissions in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Muja Hid Hussain vs The State1984 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for unnatural offences. The petitioner was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence under the Ordinance but maintained the conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful due to the negative report regarding semen presence in rectal swabs and the failure to produce the victim's shalwar. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sufficiently supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating medical evidence, despite the forensic report's findings. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that where evidence is consistent and corroborated, the absence of specific forensic confirmation does not necessarily invalidate a conviction for unnatural offences.
Questions settled- Does a negative report regarding the presence of semen in rectal swabs automatically render a prosecution case for an unnatural offence doubtful?
- Can a conviction for an unnatural offence be sustained based on the victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence despite the absence of forensic confirmation?
- Is the failure to produce a victim's clothing as evidence fatal to a prosecution case for an unnatural offence?