Latest Judgments

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

• Sajjad Ali vs Jan.Muhammad and Other1983 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-19
  leave to appealevacuee propertyrehabilitation settlement schemetemporary allotmentre-verification of claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a writ petition filed by the respondents and set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner confirming land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was a temporary allottee whose claim for evacuee agricultural land was initially verified for a lesser area, but upon re-verification, he was found entitled to additional land abandoned by his uncles as their sole heir. After remand by the High Court in earlier litigation, the Additional Settlement Commissioner confirmed land equivalent to 53 Produce Index Units in the petitioner's favour, reducing the area confirmed to the respondents. The High Court, however, held that re-verification alone did not justify disturbing the respondents' allotment. The core legal question concerns the protection and reservation of land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme for claimants whose claims are pending re-verification. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme require further consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-verification of a refugee's claim constitute a legitimate ground for disturbing an existing land allotment made to another party?
  • How are the interests of refugees to be safeguarded under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme when their claims and objections are pending re-verification?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rahman vs The State1983 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-17
  criminal appealjoint liabilitysentence proportionalitymurderattempted murderdeath penaltysudden encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by Saifur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal, and Muhammad Ashraf against their convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Munawwar Ahmad and causing injuries to Javed Ahmad. The trial court sentenced Saifur Rahman to death and the other petitioners to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed these convictions. Before the Supreme Court, the primary legal question concerned the proportionality of the death sentence imposed on Saifur Rahman compared to his co-accused, given the nature of the joint liability and the contention that the assault was a sudden encounter rather than a premeditated act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitions of Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ashraf and rejected them. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to Saifur Rahman specifically to consider the question of the appropriateness of his sentence in light of the arguments regarding joint liability and the circumstances of the incident.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death sentence of an accused can be reconsidered when co-accused involved in the same joint liability incident received lesser sentences?
  • Does a sudden encounter between rival groups negate the existence of a premeditated and preplanned assault?
  • Is the principle of joint liability applicable to determine the proportionality of sentences among co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ali vs Galas Din and Other1983 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22
  allotment of landSettlement and Rehabilitation lawsdisplaced persondouble allotmentfindings of factleave to appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the disputed allotment of land under Settlement and Rehabilitation laws. The petitioner, claiming to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, asserted that he was allotted the land in question prior to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's earlier allotment was valid and whether the subsequent allotment to the respondents constituted an illegal double allotment. The Settlement Commissioner, in a revisional order, had previously determined that the petitioner's claim was factually unsubstantiated. The High Court, upon review, affirmed this, further noting that the petitioner failed to satisfy necessary conditions regarding the drawing of rations required for such an allotment. The Supreme Court held that the findings regarding the disputed allotment were findings of fact that had been thoroughly examined by the lower authorities. Finding no justification to re-open these settled factual determinations, the Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land allotment made by settlement authorities?
  • Does an allotment made without satisfying mandatory conditions, such as the drawing of rations, confer a valid legal right?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Wall vs Yaqoot Khan and Another1983 PLD Supreme Court 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-20
  pre-emptionsale versus exchangestandard of proofdefinition of provedrevisional jurisdictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions challenging the findings of fact in pre-emption suits where the lower courts concluded that the transactions in question were in reality exchanges and not sales, and the High Court refused to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the standard of proof required to establish that a transaction termed an exchange is actually a sale, specifically whether probabilities and matters outside strict direct evidence suffice under the definition of "proved". The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the lower courts had duly considered the entire material and matters placed before them, and that the inferences drawn by the courts below regarding the transactions being exchanges were such as a prudent man would draw based on probabilities. The key principle laid down is that while matters falling under the definition of "proved" can be considered even if they do not strictly fall under narrow definitions of direct evidence, findings of fact regarding the true nature of a transaction based on an appreciation of probabilities by a prudent man will not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless tainted by illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether direct evidence of the payment of money is strictly required to prove that a transaction is a sale in pre-emption cases?
  • Can matters outside strict direct evidence be considered in proving a fact under the definition of "proved"?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Ul Haq and Another vs Muhammad Suleman and Other1983 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-15
  pre-emptionzar-e-panjamdiscretionary powersrevisional jurisdictionspeaking ordercivil petition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners instituted suits for pre-emption in which the trial court directed the deposit of zar-e-panjam in cash. Subsequently, the petitioners filed applications seeking to replace the cash deposit order with an order for furnishing security. The trial court dismissed these applications, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petitions, holding that the trial court's order was passed in the exercise of its discretionary powers and could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court acted illegally by dismissing the applications without a hearing and without a speaking order. The Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the non-appearance of counsel or parties cannot be resolved in these proceedings, and that no elaborate order is required when deciding a miscellaneous application of this nature. The petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the trial court refusing to replace a cash deposit of zar-e-panjam with security can be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the dismissal of an application for modification of an order regarding zar-e-panjam require an elaborate speaking order?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the appearance of counsel or parties be resolved in petition proceedings before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Khan and Others vs Mst. Rashid Qamar Sultana and Othes1983 SCMR 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03
  inheritancemuslim lawillegitimate childnasabmarriage validityevacuee propertyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from conflicting decisions regarding inheritance and property allotments of displaced persons. The core legal questions examined whether a valid marriage existed under Muslim Law between a Sikh male and a Muslim female, whether children of such a union inherit from their parents, and whether the High Court correctly resolved a conflict of decisions between the Claims Organization and Settlement Organization rather than remanding the matter. The Supreme Court held that no valid marriage was established between the parties under statutory, customary, or Islamic law, as a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim is barred and could not be validated by the Anand Marriage Act or customary practices without clear proof. Consequently, the offspring of such illicit cohabitation lacked established nasab (descent) and could not inherit as legitimate heirs or brothers. The Court laid down that an illegitimate child has no established paternity for inheritance purposes and cannot inherit from or through the father or as a uterine/full sibling to legitimate children, upholding the High Court's dismissal of the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a marriage between a Muslim female and a Sikh male is valid under Muslim Law?
  • Whether children born from an unacknowledged union between a non-Muslim male and a Muslim female can inherit from their parents or each other?
  • Can the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to resolve conflicting decisions of the Claims Organization and Settlement Organization instead of remanding the matter?
  • Does an illegitimate child acquire the status of a uterine brother to a legitimate child of the same mother for the purposes of inheritance under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mian Ansari and Another vs Aqeel Ahmad Siddiqui1983 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-10
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantpersonal requirementbona fide needrent controlleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an order for the ejectment of the petitioner from a residential property in Karachi. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their findings regarding the landlord's grounds for eviction, specifically default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and the landlord's personal requirement for the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court were supported by evidence. The Rent Controller had determined that the landlord’s personal requirement was bona fide, noting that the landlord was currently residing in his mother's house with a large number of family members. The Court found that the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any evidence or legal error that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the ejectment order based on the established bona fide personal need of the landlord.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge an ejectment order based on personal requirement if the landlord's need is found to be bona fide by the Rent Controller?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent matters where no evidence of error is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Ghulam Muhammad and Another1983 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01
  cooperative farming societymembership removalwrit petitionreview petitionleave to appeallong-standing possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service and cooperative matter concerning the removal of the petitioner from the membership of a Co-operative Farming Society and the subsequent allotment of land to the respondent. The core legal question involved whether the removal of the petitioner from society membership and the consequent land allotment, initially ordered upon the report of the Assistant Registrar and subsequently endorsed by the Managing Committee's resolution, violated the society's bye-laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in reviewing its earlier judgment and recalling the writ, as bye-law 10 permitted the removal of a member at the instance of the Registrar, and disturbing a long-standing possession of nineteen years would be inequitable. The key principle laid down is that action taken at the instance of the Registrar in accordance with cooperative bye-laws is valid, and equitable considerations regarding long-standing possession warrant declining discretionary constitutional remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Farming Societies has the authority to initiate the removal of a member who is not a self-cultivator?
  • Can a writ petition succeed when a valid resolution endorsing the removal exists but was not initially produced?
  • Is it fair to dislodge a party from land possession after a long lapse of nineteen years?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Ali and Others vs Muhammad Sharif and Other1983 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29
  pre-emptionlimitationcertified copyregular second appealprocedural defaultinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) in the High Court without the mandatory certified copy of the trial court's judgment. The appellant had sought dispensation for filing the copy under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming it was not yet available. The High Court granted temporary relief, allowing the appeal to proceed pending the production of the copy. However, despite receiving the certified copy on January 6, 1965, the appellant failed to file it with the court for over ten years. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, ruling that the appeal was not properly constituted. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal because the appellant failed to comply with the condition of filing the certified copy within the extended time granted. The Supreme Court affirmed that an appeal filed without the required documentation, which remains unrectified for an unreasonable period, is properly dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed without the mandatory certified copy of the trial court's judgment properly constituted?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as time-barred if the appellant fails to file the required certified copy within the extended time granted?
  • Does the failure to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment for an extended period render an appeal liable to dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• S. M. Khaliq Shah and Another vs Haj Feroz Khan and Other1983 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptioncontiguityKhasra numberland ownershipcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the respondents, as rival pre-emptors, possessed a superior right of pre-emption based on the contiguity of their land to the suit property, despite arguments regarding the division of Khasra numbers and the existence of an intervening water channel. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the respondents successfully established their superior right of pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that for the purpose of pre-emption, a parcel of land comprised of multiple Khasra numbers constitutes a single property. Consequently, a pre-emptor does not need to establish contiguity to every individual Khasra number within the block; establishing contiguity to any part of the parcel is sufficient to maintain a claim over the entire land sold, as the sale of such a parcel is treated as a single transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for a pre-emptor to own land contiguous to every individual Khasra number in a block of land to exercise a right of pre-emption?
  • Does a parcel of land comprised of multiple Khasra numbers constitute a single property for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • Does the existence of an intervening water channel, not recorded in official revenue records, defeat a claim of contiguity in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• S. M. Arfin vs Auditor General of Pakistan1983 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06
  service lawseniority disputeestoppelgovernment serviceTransfer of Railways OrderService Tribunals Actappointment conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and grade of a former Pakistan Eastern Railway employee appointed to the Federal Government in 1974. The appellant contended that his previous service should be linked to his new appointment, relying on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Transfer of Railways Order (P.O. No. 33) of 1962. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant was entitled to claim seniority and grade benefits based on his past service despite the terms of his new appointment. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not a fit case for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the offer of appointment in 1974, which explicitly included a condition estopping him from laying claim to seniority or promotion based on his past services with the Pakistan Eastern Railway. Having accepted these terms in writing, the appellant was bound by them. The Court established that a government servant is estopped from challenging service conditions or claiming past seniority when they have explicitly accepted an appointment subject to contrary terms.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant claim seniority based on past service after explicitly accepting an appointment offer that waives such claims?
  • Does the acceptance of specific terms and conditions of service estop a government employee from challenging those conditions later?
  • Is a court required to interpret constitutional or statutory provisions regarding service status when the petitioner has already contractually waived the underlying claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Rochiram and Another vs Federal Land Commissioner II and 3 Other1983 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-27
  agricultural landalienationprivate partitionmartial law regulationrecord of rightsspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition, which challenged orders of the land revenue authorities under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question concerned the validity of oral alienations and private partition of agricultural land made by a Hindu female owner in favour of her heirs prior to the crucial date, and whether such transactions were void ab initio under the relevant regulations in the presence of a subsequent will and lack of mutation in the record of rights. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the land commission authorities and the High Court—establishing that the alleged alienations and private partition were not legally substantiated and were overridden by an executed will—were unexceptionable and within their exclusive jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that private partitions and unverified oral transfers without legal sanctity or official approval cannot bypass statutory provisions under land reforms. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral alienations and private partitions of agricultural land are valid without mutation in the record of rights and approval by land reform authorities under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by land commission authorities regarding the bona fides of alienations be interfered with by the superior courts?
  • Does the execution of a subsequent will affect prior claims of oral alienation and private partition of joint family property?
  Read full judgment →
• Risaldar Qurban Ali vs Allah Rakha and 2 Other1983 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  land allotmentJammu and Kashmir refugeesconstitutional petitionsettlement authoritiesleave to appealallotment cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the restoration of land allotments to the respondents. The dispute concerns land originally allotted to the respondents in 1957 as Jammu and Kashmir refugees, which was subsequently cancelled in 1972 without a hearing. Following a successful constitutional challenge by the respondents, the matter was remanded to settlement authorities, who ultimately allowed the respondents to retain the land in 1976. The petitioner, a subsequent allottee, challenged this restoration, arguing that the initial 1959 allotment was illegal and that the respondents failed to cultivate the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that it was too late to challenge the validity of the 1959 allotments. The Court found that the respondents' status as Jammu and Kashmir refugees was established, entitling them to the land. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the settlement authorities' decision to restore the allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of a land allotment made in 1959 be challenged decades later in constitutional proceedings?
  • Does the status of being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee entitle an allottee to retain land allotments despite allegations of non-cultivation?
  • Is the High Court empowered to disturb a factual determination made by settlement authorities regarding the restoration of land allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Masih vs The State1983 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-28
  leave to appealmurderdeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceeye-witness testimonydelayed petitioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his wife and confirming his death sentence. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, corroborative evidence, and recovery in a capital case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts based on credible daylight eye-witness testimony, prompt reporting, immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot along with blood-stained weapons, and supporting medical evidence warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are independent, their presence is natural, and their testimony is corroborated by prompt apprehension at the scene and recovery of incriminating articles, the conviction and capital sentence shall be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned in a capital punishment case?
  • Does the apprehension of the accused at the spot along with incriminating weapons provide sufficient corroboration for an ocular account?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code call for interference when eye-witnesses are independent and credible?
  Read full judgment →
• Republic of Pakistan vs Messrs Hamid Construction Co.1983 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-15
  arbitrationleave to appealarbitration awardreference clauseextra work claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court upholding an arbitration award made in favour of the respondent contractor. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a construction agreement containing an arbitration clause for disputes arising out of or relating to the contract. During execution, deviations occurred, leading to claims for extra payment. After an initial award was set aside, a second arbitrator awarded Rs. 1,33,000 to the respondent, which was made a rule of the court by the lower court and upheld by a learned Single Judge. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that extra items outside the contract schedule were not covered by the reference clause and that the arbitrator improperly awarded costs based on special rates rather than scheduled rates. The Supreme Court found that the points argued needed examination and granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputes regarding extra items of work not expressly listed in the contract schedule fall within the purview of the arbitration reference clause?
  • Whether an arbitrator is justified in awarding costs for additional work based on special rates rather than scheduled rates?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Ali Muhammad and Another1983 SCMR 1064 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09
  urban tenancyrent restrictionlandlord and tenant relationshipres judicatasummary proceedingstitle disputeeviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment in an urban tenancy dispute where the respondent sought the appellant's eviction. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, exercising summary jurisdiction, can order eviction when the landlord's title is disputed and the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller must be satisfied regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. If the claimant fails to establish this relationship or if the title dispute is too complex for summary proceedings, the Controller must dismiss the eviction application and relegate the claimant to a civil court for a declaration of title. The Court found that the appellate authority erred by ordering eviction despite acknowledging the weakness of the respondent's title claim. The judgment establishes that while Rent Controller proceedings are summary, they require a firm finding on the landlord-tenant relationship. Absent such satisfaction, the petition must be dismissed, and the claimant cannot be granted relief while leaving the tenant to seek redress elsewhere.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the bar of res judicata apply to findings of a Rent Controller regarding title?
  • Can a Rent Controller relegate a party to a civil court for determination of title in an eviction proceeding?
  • Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to orders passed by a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Mst. Sardar Bibi and Other1983SCM R7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19
  review petitionlocus standitransfer of propertysettlement schemeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order dated 24-2-1981, which had dismissed a civil petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of property. The core legal question addressed is whether a petitioner possesses the locus standi to challenge the transfer of portions of a property that were not in his occupation, and whether grounds for review are made out when points raised have already been considered at the initial hearing. The Court held that the property in question had been validly divided into nine units and transferred to respective occupants, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to question the transfer of units he did not occupy. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot maintain a challenge regarding property units outside their occupation, and a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points already addressed and adjudicated upon by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner have the locus standi to question the transfer of property units that were not in his occupation?
  • Can a review petition be entertained to re-argue points that were already advanced and attended to at the hearing of the civil petition?
  • Under what circumstances can portions of a property be transferred to respondents under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs THS State1983 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-10
  private defenceexceeding right of self-defenceculpable homicideirrigation water disputecriminal appealfatal injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, for the murder of the deceased. The incident arose from a dispute over irrigation water turns, during which the petitioner struck the deceased multiple times with a kassi, resulting in fatal head injuries. The petitioner contended that the act was committed in the exercise of the right of private defence of person and property, arguing that the deceased had forcibly interfered with the petitioner's water turn. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and affirmed the findings of the lower courts, holding that the petitioner had clearly exceeded the right of private defence. The Court emphasized that there was no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the petitioner, and the use of excessive force—specifically multiple blows with a kassi—was unjustified. The Court further rejected the argument that the deceased's alleged interference with water rights justified the lethal response, ultimately dismissing the petition as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence justify the use of lethal force when there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt?
  • Can an accused claim the right of private defence if they have exceeded the limits prescribed by law?
  • Does the alleged commission of an offence by the deceased regarding water rights justify a lethal response by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State1983 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04
  murdersentence commutationgrave and sudden provocationocular evidencemotivecompensation to heirscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Mst. Inayat Bibi and sentenced to death, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider the appropriateness of the sentence. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony to establish that the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife, inflicting multiple fatal injuries. While the defense attempted to argue grave and sudden provocation, this was rejected by the Court. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive regarding a dispute over a drain. Given the lack of proven motive and evidence suggesting the attack occurred during a heated exchange of words—indicating the appellant acted in the heat of the moment—the Court held that the death sentence was excessive. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with the fine maintained as compensation to the deceased's brother.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the alleged motive for a crime necessitate a reduction in the sentence?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the evidence suggests the crime was committed in the heat of the moment?
  • Is a husband who has abandoned his wife entitled to receive compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehma r Gill and Another vs Quetta Cantonment Board1983 PLD Supreme Court 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-24
  Cantonment BoardIndustrial Relations OrdinanceArmed ForcesStatutory interpretationEmployment disputeLabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to employees of the Quetta Cantonment Board. The appellants, a sweeper and a chowkidar, challenged their dismissal by filing applications under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question was whether Cantonment Boards perform functions connected with the Armed Forces, thereby invoking the exclusionary clause of Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of a cantonment is the quartering of troops and the management of their requirements. Consequently, the administration and upkeep of cantonments constitute services directly connected with the Armed Forces, notwithstanding the presence of a civilian population or the performance of municipal duties. The Court affirmed that Cantonment Board employees are excluded from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The principle laid down is that the nature of a Cantonment Board's statutory duties, which are inherently linked to the quartering of regular forces, renders its employees ineligible for the protections afforded by the Industrial Relations Ordinance under the exemption provided for services connected with the Armed Forces.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of a Cantonment Board excluded from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Does the performance of municipal duties by a Cantonment Board negate its connection to the Armed Forces for the purpose of statutory exemptions?
  • Does the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance conclusively determine the applicability of the Ordinance to the employees of a Cantonment Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasab and Another vs The State and Another1983 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-30
  leave to appealcondonation of delayculpable homicidereappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, who were initially convicted of murder by the trial court but had their convictions altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder by the High Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal their conviction and sentence under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed with a significant delay of 351 days; however, in light of the circumstances and the proposed order, the Court condoned the delay. Crucially, the Court observed that a separate petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the petitioners on the murder charge had already been granted leave by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held that since the entire evidence would necessarily be reappraised in the context of the complainant's pending appeal against the acquittal, it was appropriate to grant leave to the petitioners as well to ensure a comprehensive review of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained despite a significant delay in filing?
  • Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal when a related petition concerning the same evidence and acquittal is already pending before the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Ghulam Muhammad and Anoterss1983 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01
  specific performanceremand of caseadditional issuesadmissibility of evidencebona fide purchaserjudicial records
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate court's decision to remand a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court erred in framing an additional issue regarding the bona fide purchase of the suit land by a subsequent vendee, and whether certain judicial records (Exhibits P. 5 to P. 7) were admissible as evidence without establishing the identity of the deponents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the framing of the additional issue was appropriate as it would narrow the controversy and resolve the case effectively without causing prejudice to the petitioner. Regarding the evidence, the Court affirmed that while judicial records are admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872, the identity of the persons who made the statements must be established for them to be relied upon. The Court established that a court may frame additional issues to clarify controversies, and that the admissibility of judicial records requires verification of the deponents' identities.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court frame an additional issue to narrow the scope of a controversy in a suit for specific performance?
  • Is the identity of a deponent required to be established before their statement from previous judicial proceedings can be admitted as evidence?
  • Does the framing of an additional issue regarding a subsequent purchaser's notice of a prior agreement constitute a valid ground for remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Khan and Others vs Rahmat Khan and Other1983 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-16
  consolidation schemeconsolidation of holdingsconstitutional jurisdictionKhasra Girdawarileave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a consolidation scheme confirmed by the Collector (Consolidation), Depalpur, in 1973. The petitioners challenged the scheme, asserting entitlement to a specific Killa (Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63), which they claimed was a garden, or alternatively, seeking compensation for it. Following the dismissal of their revision petition by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, the petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their petition in limine. The High Court reasoned that the garden did not exist at the time of the consolidation operations. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners attempted to rely on Khasra Girdawaris from 1976 and 1977 to prove the existence of the garden. The Supreme Court upheld the lower findings, noting that the petitioners failed to provide evidence that the garden existed in 1973, the relevant time for consolidation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the consolidation was conducted appropriately and the petitioners' holdings were consolidated without prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a consolidation scheme subject to challenge based on the existence of land features that were not present at the time of the consolidation operations?
  • Does the failure to provide evidence of land status at the relevant time of consolidation preclude a claim for specific allotment or compensation?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed in limine when the petitioner fails to establish the factual basis for their claim at the relevant time of the administrative action?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad vs Ghulam Rasool and Other1983 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23
  limitationcondonation of delaycertified copytime-barred appealsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of the petitioner's civil appeal by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on the ground of being time-barred, which decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in civil revision and review proceedings. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's appeal before the District Court was barred by limitation and whether sufficient cause existed for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly found the appeal time-barred as the petitioner failed to account for the delay of each and every day after obtaining the certified copy, having offered no plausible explanation for the subsequent 11-day delay in filing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that when an appeal is barred by limitation, the appellant must satisfactorily account for the delay of each and every day, and the failure to establish sufficient cause precludes the condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant must account for the delay of each and every day when filing a time-barred appeal?
  • Does failure to provide a plausible explanation for a delayed filing preclude the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient cause for delay?
  Read full judgment →
• R. B. Industries Ltd. vs Employees' Welfare Union and Another1983 PLD Supreme Court 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-06
  cost of living allowanceindustrial settlementwage increasestatutory interpretationlabour tribunaladjustment of benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of a settlement reached between R. B. Industries Ltd. and its employees' welfare union regarding wage increases, and its applicability to section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether an extraordinary wage increase granted under a bilateral settlement was intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, thereby making it adjustable against the statutory additional cost of living allowance introduced by the Amending Act of 1974, and whether such an intention must be expressly stated in the settlement or can be gathered from surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the explanation to section 8 is inapplicable to extraordinary wage increases, and that courts may examine the charter of demands, previous settlements, and surrounding circumstances to determine whether a wage raise was intended to offset the cost of living. The Court laid down that the intention behind a wage adjustment can be implied and established through evidence and contextual factors without requiring an explicit declaration in the settlement text.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extraordinary wage increase granted under a settlement is intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living under section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974?
  • Can surrounding circumstances, previous settlements, and charters of demands be examined to determine the intention behind a wage increase agreed upon by employers and employees?
  • Does the explanation to section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974 apply to extraordinary wage increases or only to annual increments, promotions, and specific allowances?
  • Must a settlement explicitly declare that a financial benefit is given by way of relief due to a rise in the cost of living for the employer to claim adjustment under the proviso to section 8?
  Read full judgment →
• Qutab Ud Din vs Sana Ullah and Other1983 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08
  ejectmentpersonal needreconstructionleave to appealmisreading of evidencelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a landlord against the dismissal of his ejectment application concerning a shop situated in Pakpattan Sharif. The lower courts rejected the ejectment petition primarily on the ground that the landlord had previously obtained the vacation of the same shop on the plea of personal need, subsequently rented it out, and was repeating the same tactic, thereby demonstrating a lack of good faith. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts misread the evidence and misconstrued the grounds upon which the premises was previously vacated, specifically whether it was for personal need or reconstruction. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioner's contentions that the previous eviction was actually sought for reconstruction rather than personal need and that the High Court misread the testimony of witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter further. The key principle laid down is that findings of lower courts based on a misreading of the record and evidence regarding material facts, such as the grounds of a prior ejectment, warrant the granting of leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment petition can be dismissed on the ground of lack of good faith when prior eviction proceedings were allegedly based on personal need?
  • Does a finding based on a misreading of witness testimony regarding prior ejectment proceedings warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Can a landlord seek the ejectment of a tenant for personal need after previously renting out the premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs The State and Other1983 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-28
  leave to appealacquittalself-defenceappreciation of evidencecriminal revisionaggression
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of four respondents charged with offences under sections 307, 326, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, alleged that the respondents assaulted him and his nephew. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding that the complainant party was the aggressor, had failed to explain injuries sustained by the respondents, and that the defence version of self-defence was more plausible. The High Court upheld this acquittal in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence regarding self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to raise any question of law or demonstrate that the lower courts omitted or misread material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide copies of witness statements, preventing the Court from reviewing the evidence. Consequently, the Court found the lower courts' judgments based on cogent reasons and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that mere disagreement with factual conclusions does not warrant interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere disagreement with the factual conclusions of lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to provide the necessary record, such as witness statements, to support the contention of misreading evidence?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the lower courts have provided cogent reasons for their findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs Federal Land Commissioner and Other1983 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-15
  Locus standiWrit jurisdictionMartial Law Regulation 115Informant rightsLand reformAdministrative discretionResumed land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which held that the petitioner lacked locus standi. The petitioner, acting as an informant, had alleged that the third respondent held land in excess of the limits prescribed under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. After various administrative proceedings, the Federal Land Commissioner set aside an order directing the respondent's prosecution. The core legal question was whether an informant, having provided information regarding excess land, possesses the legal standing to challenge the final administrative disposal of such information via a writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an informant does not acquire a vested right in the property or the outcome of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the distribution of resumed land remains within the discretion of the authorities, and the informant merely sets the law in motion without gaining a right to challenge the final decision. The principle established is that an informant lacks locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction against administrative orders disposing of their information.

  Questions settled

  • Does an informant who provides information regarding excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 have the locus standi to challenge the final administrative disposal of that information?
  • Does the provision of information regarding excess land confer a vested right in the property upon the informant?
  • Are authorities bound to transfer resumed land to an informant who initiated the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Qayyum and Others vs The Government of Punjab and Other1983 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08
  service lawseniority disputepro forma promotioncivil service promotionservice tribunal jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the seniority of a civil servant, Muhammad Nawaz Maqhdoom, who was initially overlooked for promotion to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner (E.A.C.) in 1974 while his juniors were promoted. Although the respondent was eventually promoted in 1980 and granted pro forma promotion effective from 1978, he sought seniority over those junior officers promoted in 1974. The Punjab Service Tribunal ruled in his favor, directing his placement at Serial No. 60 in the seniority list, reasoning that he had not been properly considered or superseded in 1974. The petitioners, who were among those junior officers promoted in 1974, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. They argued that the respondent had failed a qualifying test held under the relevant rules in 1974 and had not timely challenged the earlier promotion of his juniors. The Supreme Court found that these contentions raised substantial legal questions requiring examination and granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the Tribunal's order regarding the respondent's seniority claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim seniority over officers promoted earlier if they failed to qualify for promotion at the relevant time?
  • Does the failure to challenge an earlier promotion preclude a later claim for seniority based on that promotion?
  • Is a service tribunal's direction regarding seniority placement legally sustainable if the underlying promotion criteria were not met by the claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Ali vs Abdul Majid and Another1983 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-12
  pre-emptionshopcontiguitysale-deedsecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against a single order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent and rival judgments of the lower appellate court regarding suits for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the suit properties were shops—thereby barring the right of pre-emption under the relevant statute—or whether they were residential stores and bakery ovens respectively, subject to pre-emption based on contiguity. The Supreme Court held that each case depends upon its peculiar circumstances and the primary object for which a building is used must be ascertained. Finding that the lower courts and the High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the nature of the properties, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that the determination of whether a property is a shop for pre-emption purposes depends on the primary object and use of the building, and findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the lower courts will not be interfered with lightly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property described as a shop in a sale-deed is exempt from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • How is the primary character of a building to be ascertained when determining if it qualifies as a shop in pre-emption suits?
  • Does a property used as a store and for residential purposes or as a bakery oven constitute a shop under the pre-emption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali Dogar vs Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. and Another1983 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-24
  service terminationreinstatementback benefitssenioritylabour appellate tribunalconstitutional petitionsettlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine, which had challenged the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside his reinstatement. The appellant, a peon and later Head Security Guard in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, had his services terminated following a police report regarding a criminal case from his youth, in which he was honourably acquitted. The core legal question concerned the validity of his termination and the setting aside of his reinstatement by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on a settlement reached between the parties. The Court held that the appellant would be treated as in service throughout, granted seniority and notional promotions, and allowed increments, though foregoing back benefits for a specific period, thereby resolving the dispute amicably.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of a confirmed employee of a bank can be terminated simply by giving one month's notice?
  • Can a termination order based on a past criminal challan resulting in honourable acquittal be sustained?
  • Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court can be disposed of on the basis of a settlement regarding continuity of service and back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamaruddin vs Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and Another1983 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-07
  transfer of propertydisplaced persons compensationdivision of housepossession entitlementsettlement commissionerself-contained unit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer and division of a house under settlement laws. The core legal question examined was whether the second respondent had established entitlement to the transfer of a portion of the house and whether the division of the house into two units by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was legally warranted. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dividing the house was arbitrary, based on a spurious document regarding possession, and failed to consider whether the divided portions constituted independent, self-contained structural units. The ratio decidendi is that possession simpliciter does not dictate the division of a building into units under the relevant settlement statute; rather, the division must be co-related to the structural characteristics of the building to form an integrated, self-contained portion. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Letters Patent Bench judgment and restoring the Single Judge's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether possession simpliciter determines the division of a building into separate units under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner order the division of a house into units without examining the structural feasibility and independent character of each unit?
  • Does an indirect claimant out of possession have equal entitlement to a claimant in possession for the transfer of an indivisible property?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs Habib Ullah and Another1983 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan and Another1983 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-26
  company winding-upsecured creditorpledged goodsspecial leave to appealintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. against Lahore High Court orders allowing winding-up petitions brought by creditor-banks. The core legal questions involve whether a fully secured creditor should be permitted to seek company winding-up when debts can be recovered by selling pledged goods, whether denying the company the right to summon witnesses and an inordinate delay of two years in delivering judgment vitiate the proceedings, and whether an intra-court appeal lies against a single judge's winding-up order in light of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the principles governing company winding-up by secured creditors and related procedural questions, while preserving the objection regarding the maintainability of a direct appeal before the Supreme Court when an intra-court remedy might exist. The Court directed that the provisional liquidator continue functioning subject to restrictions on selling fixed assets during the pendency of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fully secured creditor should be allowed to apply for the winding up of a company when its debts can be recovered by the sale of pledged goods?
  • Does the closure of evidence despite the filing of a witness list and process fee constitute a denial of a valuable right warranting interference?
  • Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment and order of a Single Judge sitting on the Original Side in winding-up matters under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab and Others vs Mufti Abdul Ghani1983 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18
  rent restrictionlandlord and tenant relationshiplocus standiejectment proceedingsstriking off defencejurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which ordered the eviction of the Province of the Punjab and the Director of Education from a property housing a school due to a delay in depositing rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller is obligated to determine the preliminary objection regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the locus standi of the applicant before passing an order for the deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the petitioners had raised significant objections regarding the respondent's ownership and standing, which were not addressed by the lower forums. The Court held that these objections went to the root of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed that the party currently in possession of the property shall maintain the status quo pending the final decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to decide the objection regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before ordering the deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does an objection regarding the locus standi of an applicant in an ejectment petition go to the root of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Ch. Wali Muhammad1983 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-05
  service matterleave to appealcompetent authoritycivil suit competenceabatement of suitsservice laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a service dispute between the Province of Punjab and Ch. Wali Muhammad. The core legal questions for consideration involve whether the Local Audit Departmental Rules, 1958 govern the determination of the competent authority, and whether a civil suit remained competent following the enactment of new service laws in 1973 and 1974 along with the legal effect of provisions relating to abatement and established case law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, directing that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty for parties to file additional documents if necessary. The holding establishes that leave is granted to deliberate upon the applicability of the departmental rules and the jurisdictional competence of civil courts in light of subsequent service legislation and abatement rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Local Audit Departmental Rules, 1958 should have governed the question as to who was the competent authority?
  • Whether the civil suit remained at all competent after the enactment of new service laws in 1973/1974?
  • What is the effect of provisions relating to abatement of similar matters together with the rule laid down in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Lyallpus (Faisalabad) vs Malik Ghulam Haider1983 SC MR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22
  service tribunaldate of birthcivil servantjurisdiction of high courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment of the High Court dated 14-3-1981. The core legal question examined by the Court is whether, following the establishment of the Service Tribunal, the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to pass a judgment restoring a trial court decree that declared the correct date of birth of a civil servant, ordered its substitution in his service record, and continued him in service on that basis. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the operation of the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court shall be suspended meanwhile. The principle laid down relates to the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in service matters concerning civil servants after the constitutional and statutory establishment of Service Tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether after the establishment of Service Tribunal, the High Court could restore a decree of the trial Court declaring the correct date of birth of a civil servant?
  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction in service matters of civil servants after the establishment of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Another vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Other1983 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-22
  temporary injunctioninfructuous petitioncanal water rightsinterlocutory ordercivil procedureadministrative implementation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which quashed an appellate order granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute arose from a suit filed by the Province of Punjab challenging an order of the Superintending Canal Officer that permitted the respondents' predecessor-in-interest to consolidate water drawal from a single outlet. While the trial court initially rejected the application for a temporary injunction, the Additional District Judge allowed it on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court set aside this appellate order, reasoning that the administrative order in question had already been implemented, rendering the injunction application infructuous. Upon review, the Supreme Court summoned departmental officers to verify the status of the implementation. Based on the officers' confirmation that the consolidation of the water outlet had indeed been executed, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that where an administrative order has already been implemented, an application for a temporary injunction against that order becomes infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implementation of an administrative order render an application for a temporary injunction against that order infructuous?
  • Can an appellate court's order granting an injunction be quashed if the underlying subject matter has already been executed?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Bashir Nasir vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Commissioner1983 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09
  allotment of landlocus standirehabilitation schemeurban landtrespasserschool playground
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the allotment of urban land in Nawan Kot, Lahore. The petitioner challenged an allotment made to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, arguing that the land contained constructed school buildings and residential quarters. While a Single Judge initially set aside the allotment, a Division Bench reversed this, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as a trespasser and that the land's status was determined by its use on 15th August 1947. However, the Division Bench, based on a concession by the allottee, directed that the area covered by the schools be excluded from the allotment for transfer to the institution. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, finding no legal basis for the petitioner to claim further land. Nevertheless, the Court observed that a school requires a playground and directed the Notified Officer to consider allocating additional space for this purpose when finalizing the transfer, expressing confidence that the allottee's heirs would honor the spirit of the original concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trespasser on land have the locus standi to challenge an allotment of that land?
  • Is the status of land for allotment purposes under the Rehabilitation Scheme determined by its use on 15th August 1947 or its current use?
  • Can a court direct the allocation of additional land for school playgrounds based on equitable considerations when the allottee has conceded to the transfer of the school building area?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore vs Ghulam Mustafa1983 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  disciplinary actionstudent admissionfalse representationwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefunclean handsfraudulent misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside disciplinary action taken by the King Edward Medical College against a student. The student had secured admission after concealing a prior attempt at the F.Sc. examination and submitting a false affidavit. The core legal question was whether such misrepresentation constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action despite the absence of immediate wrongful loss or gain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the student’s act of concealing facts and filing a false affidavit constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on criminal law precedents requiring actual wrongful loss to establish fraud. The Court affirmed the principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised in favour of a petitioner with "unclean hands" who employs fraudulent means to obtain educational admission. Consequently, the disciplinary action taken by the college authorities was upheld as justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does a student's misrepresentation in an admission form constitute fraud even if the intended wrongful gain has not yet materialized?
  • Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who has secured admission through false representations and affidavits?
  • Is the definition of 'false representation' in disciplinary proceedings limited by the requirement of actual wrongful loss or gain as defined in criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General and Another vs M. Rafique Shad1983 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-18
  service tribunalremoval from serviceefficiency and discipline ruleslimitationcompetent authorityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal which allowed the respondent's appeal against his removal from service as a Delivery Clerk on the technical ground that the Postmaster (Delivery) G.P.O. Lahore was not competent to pass the removal order under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules during the period from 18-8-1973 to 24-7-1975 due to an alleged absence of delegation from the President. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was competent to act under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules and whether the Service Tribunal erred in its findings regarding limitation and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the notification classifying services and posts empowered the designated Gazetted Officer Incharge of Division to exercise powers under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, and found no inconsistency between the applicable laws and rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the remaining points involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Postmaster or Gazetted Officer Incharge of Division was competent to pass an order of removal under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules during the relevant period?
  • Does the Service Tribunals Act 1973 create a distinction between void orders and other orders regarding the application of limitation?
  • Whether existing rules and notifications continue to remain operative under statutory provisions until the framing of new rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Aslam and Others vs Mst. Farhat and Other1983 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  ejectmenturban propertysettlement lawnotice under section 30leave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a second appeal concerning the ejectment of the petitioners from an urban property. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment proceedings were misconceived due to pending settlement proceedings, whether the petitioner was entitled to a notice under section 30 of the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment proceedings were validly launched on the basis of a P.T.O. following demarcation, that the question of notice under section 30 was merely of academic value since such notice is no longer necessary, and that the petitioner was himself at fault for failing to produce evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ejectment proceedings can be launched on the basis of a P.T.O. while settlement proceedings are pending?
  • Does the failure to issue a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiate ejectment proceedings when such notice is no longer necessary?
  • Can a party complain of a lack of fair opportunity of hearing when their case was closed due to their own failure to produce evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan and Others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and Other1983 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13
  land allotmentrevenue recordroznamcha waqiatiregister of allotmentsunauthorised occupationsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition where the petitioners' claim to land allotment was negatived by the revenue authorities and the High Court on the ground that no order of allotment existed in their favour in the relevant register of allotments. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the absence of an entry in the allotment register alone was conclusive to prove that no allotment was made, particularly when the register pertained only to certain years and subsequent allottees also lacked entries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court was not justified in non-suiting the petitioners solely on the absence of the entry under the circumstances, and ordered that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed meanwhile.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of an entry in the register of allotments is conclusive proof that no land allotment was made?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed solely on the ground of an unverified entry or absence of entry in a revenue register?
  • Whether interim protection against dispossession can be granted pending the hearing of an appeal regarding land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Population Division, Ministry of Health, Islamabad vs Mushtaq Hussain1983 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-17
  service tribunalleave to appealmala fidetermination of servicecivil servantquestion of law of public importanceex parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had declared the termination of the respondent's service as mala fide and ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The respondent, a Store Supervisor, had been suspended, censured, and subsequently terminated after filing a civil suit challenging his suspension. The Service Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the government due to its failure to file objections despite notice. The Supreme Court examined the government's contentions that the respondent was not a civil servant and that the termination was a valid exercise of departmental authority, not mala fide. The Court held that the government failed to raise these issues before the Service Tribunal, thereby precluding a review of the factual findings. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition failed to raise a question of law of public importance, a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the Tribunal's findings on the facts presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a finding of fact in the Supreme Court if the issue was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
  • What is the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the failure of a government department to file objections before a Service Tribunal preclude it from challenging the Tribunal's findings on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Directorate General, Telegraph and Telephones, Islamabad vs Mst. Faizan1983 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-30
  Telegraph Actcompensationleave to appealdiscretionary jurisdictiontechnical objectionslimitationLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Telegraph Department of the Government of Pakistan against a Letters Patent Bench judgment of the High Court of Sindh. The respondent, owner of agricultural land in Karachi, was deprived of its use and enjoyment due to the petitioner erecting wireless station installations and fencing on it. The respondent sought compensation under the Telegraph Act 1885. The High Court on its original side accepted the petition, which was subsequently modified on appeal by the Letters Patent Bench to enhance the annual compensation based on a revised land valuation. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised technical objections regarding the High Court's original jurisdiction, the competency of the Letters Patent Appeal, and limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner could not re-open technical jurisdictional and limitation questions that were either abandoned or not raised before the lower appellate court. The Court emphasized that its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal will not be exercised to jeopardize a just decision on the merits based on purely technical and legalistic pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal solely on technical and legalistic pleas when a just decision on the merits has been reached?
  • Can a party re-open a technical objection regarding the territorial or forum jurisdiction of a High Court Judge at the Supreme Court stage if they failed to challenge the interlocutory order repelling that objection and proceeded on the merits?
  • Can a plea of limitation or ownership be raised before the Supreme Court if it was expressly abandoned or not urged before the Division Bench of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. vs The Enquiry Officer, War Risk Insurance1983 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  war risk insuranceappellate authoritypersonal hearingnatural justiceremandcompulsory insuranceadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the liability of manufacturing concerns to pay premia for war risk insurance under the War Risk Insurance Ordinance, 1971. The Enquiry Officer had issued show-cause notices for alleged deficiencies in premia payments, imposing surcharges and interest. The appellate authority dismissed the companies' appeals without granting personal hearings. The High Court remanded the cases to the Enquiry Officer, deciding some issues in favor of the companies while rejecting others. The core legal question was whether the appellate authority's failure to grant a personal hearing rendered its orders void and whether the remand should be directed to the Enquiry Officer or the appellate authority. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority's orders were void for lack of personal hearing. Consequently, the Court directed that all matters be remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that an appellate authority must afford a personal hearing to appellants before disposing of their appeals, and failure to do so renders the resulting order void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate authority required to afford a personal hearing to an appellant before disposing of an appeal?
  • Does the failure of an appellate authority to grant a personal hearing render its order void and of no legal effect?
  • Where an appellate order is found void for lack of hearing, is it appropriate to remand the case to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad vs The State1983 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-31
  capital chargeeye-witness credibilitypliable witnessesfalse implicationcriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased using a kassi, supported by eye-witness testimony. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the conduct of the eye-witnesses, who had initially implicated other individuals due to personal enmity and later retracted those allegations upon the complainant's lead. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witnesses were unreliable and pliable, acting at the behest of the complainant rather than providing independent, truthful accounts. The Court reasoned that the deliberate false implication of enemies in the initial report cast significant doubt on the entire prosecution case, suggesting the identity of the culprit was not known for certain. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient and unimpeachable to support a capital conviction, as the witnesses lacked credibility and the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside due to the unreliable nature of the evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Does the false implication of innocent persons in a murder case render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on the testimony of witnesses who demonstrate pliability and lack of independence?
  • Does the resort to implicating enemies on suspicion in an FIR suggest that the identity of the actual culprit was not known for certain?
  Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad and Others Muhammad Sharif vs The State Hakim and Other1983 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-04
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonyextra-judicial confessionrecoveriesacquittalappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated petitions arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a brutal quadruple murder committed during the night. The trial court convicted thirteen accused persons under sections 302/34, 452, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing four to death and others to various terms of imprisonment. Upon appeal and reference, the High Court maintained the convictions of some petitioners while altering certain death sentences to life imprisonment, and acquitted several other co-accused. The convicted petitioners sought leave to appeal challenging their convictions based on ocular testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries, while the complainant filed a separate petition challenging the acquittal of the other respondents. The Supreme Court examined the submissions regarding the safe administration of justice, the evidentiary value of joint extra-judicial confessions, and the reliance on police recoveries without independent corroboration. Finding that the contentions raised substantial questions requiring re-examination and re-appraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint extra-judicial confession has sufficient evidentiary value to furnish corroboration for a criminal conviction?
  • Can recoveries supported solely by the testimony of police officers furnish a strong confirmatory circumstance against the accused without independent witness support?
  • Whether the non-disclosure of certain accused names in the initial First Information Report can be justified by the positioning of the eyewitnesses at the scene?
  • Whether the High Court's acquittal of co-accused warrants re-examination when ocular testimony is accepted as trustworthy against some but discarded against others?
  Read full judgment →
• Nowsheri Khan vs Said Ahmad Shah1983 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-04
  dismissal for non-prosecutionadjournment by court readerOrder XVII Rule 5 CPCOrder XLI Rule 17 CPCrestoration of appealhanding over slipsdate of hearinglimitation for restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the dismissal of the appellant's civil revision petition. The appellant had appealed a decree for possession to the District Judge, but on subsequent dates the Presiding Officer was absent and the Moharrir (Reader) adjourned the case to 16-9-1976. On that date, neither party appeared, and the District Judge dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant's restoration application was rejected as time-barred. The Supreme Court considered whether an adjournment granted by a court reader in the Presiding Officer's absence constitutes a valid date of hearing for dismissal. The Court held that an adjournment by a reader only becomes a valid date of hearing if the mandatory requirements of Order XVII Rule 5 CPC—specifically handing over signed slips of paper specifying the next date to the parties—are satisfied. Since the appellant was absent when the reader adjourned the case, no slip was handed over, rendering the dismissal illegal and void. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution on a date to which it was adjourned by a court reader in the absence of the Presiding Officer?
  • Is compliance with the condition under Order XVII Rule 5 CPC regarding handing over slips specifying the next date mandatory before dismissing a case for non-prosecution?
  • Does Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to appellate court proceedings by virtue of Section 107(2) of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorul Islam Siddiqi vs Mst. Haidri Begum and Other1983 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29
  ejectmentrent defaultconstitutional jurisdictionaccount booksappreciation of evidenceleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order. The landlady had sought eviction based on default in rent payment and personal need for the property. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority both found against the tenant regarding the rent default, rejecting his defense that rent was adjusted against purchases made by the landlady from his shop. The High Court upheld these findings, refusing to re-evaluate the evidence regarding the account books. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his account books proved rent payment and that the landlady could not claim personal need based on her husband's requirements. The Supreme Court held that in constitutional jurisdiction, evidence deemed unreliable by lower authorities cannot be reappraised unless a legal error occurred in its admission or evaluation. It further ruled that entries in account books are not sacrosanct and do not automatically prevail. Finding the default in rent payment a sufficient ground for eviction, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence regarding account books, once rejected by lower authorities, be reappraised in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are entries in account books kept in the ordinary course of business sacrosanct in proving the discharge of rent liability?
  • Is default in the payment of rent a sufficient ground for maintaining an eviction order?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner and Other1983 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-28
  settlement matteragreement of associationlocus standitransfer of propertywrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a settlement property. The core legal question is whether a party who has previously surrendered their rights in a property through an agreement of association in favour of another transferee can subsequently seek transfer of a portion of the same property on the ground that it constitutes a separate unit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having surrendered his rights, lacked the locus standi to challenge the transfer or claim the property, regardless of whether the property comprised separate units. The petition was accordingly dismissed as without merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a transferee who has surrendered their rights in a settlement property through an agreement of association retain the locus standi to subsequently claim a portion of that property?
  • Can a party challenge the transfer of a property in favour of another after voluntarily relinquishing all rights in their favour?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 Other1983 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23
  settlement disputeallotment of propertyremand orderlocus standiwrit petitionintra-court appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a residential portion of a composite property. The property was initially transferred to the respondents in 1960, but the transfer was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The respondents challenged this cancellation in a writ petition, during which the petitioner was impleaded and allegedly filed a transfer form under Scheme No. VIII. The High Court remanded the matter with specific directions to re-examine the respondents' case. On remand, the Settlement Commissioner restored the allotment to the respondents and rejected the petitioner's claim. The petitioner's subsequent writ petition and Intra-Court Appeal were dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the petitioner had never independently challenged the initial transfer order in favor of the respondents, nor contested the limited scope of the remand order which restricted the inquiry to the respondents' case, he lacked the locus standi to seek transfer. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a settlement authority go outside the specific terms of a remand order passed by the High Court?
  • Does a third party acquire locus standi to seek transfer of a property if they failed to challenge the initial transfer order or the limited scope of a subsequent remand order?
  • Is a property considered available for retransfer to a new applicant while the original transferee's challenge against cancellation is pending adjudication under a status quo order?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Sardaran Bibi and Another1983 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13
  displaced personsettlement authoritiesavailable propertyconstitutional petitionleave to appealproperty transferlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by a claimant displaced person, Mst. Sardaran Bibi, regarding the transfer of a 'Khokha' (a small shop) situated on the outer wall of a shop previously transferred to the petitioner, Noor Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the settlement authorities' decision by determining the property's status as an independent business premise and directing its disposal under Settlement Scheme No. IX, despite arguments regarding limitation and the petitioner's prior claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that since the premises had historically been treated as a separate business unit and occupied by the respondent, the High Court's intervention was justified to prevent the deprivation of the respondent's interest. The key principle laid down is that in settlement matters involving displaced persons, the court may look beyond technicalities like limitation when a claimant has long occupied the premises as an independent business unit, ensuring the property is treated as 'available property' for proper settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with settlement authorities' decisions regarding the classification of property as an independent business premise?
  • Does the long-term occupation of a business premise by a claimant displaced person justify the court in disregarding technical limitations to ensure equitable settlement?
  • Can two separate commercial units be transferred to a single petitioner if one unit has historically been treated as an independent business premise?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ellahi vs Muhammad Ellahi and Another1983 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11
  settlement operationstransfer of propertycivil court jurisdictionfrivolous litigationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that he was entitled to the transfer of a disputed shop and that the transfer in favour of respondent No. 1 was void, alongside injunctive relief. The shop had originally been transferred to the respondent during the initial settlement operations, and previous challenges by the petitioner's brothers, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, had failed. Subsequent applications by the petitioner under settlement schemes were also rejected. The trial court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition. The core legal question is whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a property transfer made under settlement operations and seek its cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot seek the cancellation of a transfer through a civil action and that the litigation was frivolous and vexatious. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the bar on civil jurisdiction in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge the transfer of property made under settlement operations through a civil suit?
  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking the cancellation of a settlement transfer.
  • Is a suit maintainable after previous challenges to the same property transfer by family members have failed up to the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs The Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala, Etc. S1983SCMR739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-18
  no-confidence motionlocal governmentstatutory interpretationChairman of Town Committeeinterval periodtenure of office
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convening of a no-confidence motion meeting against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman could be counted towards the six-month interval requirement stipulated in Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby barring a motion against the successor Chairman. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory interval requirement applies specifically to the individual Chairman against whom the motion is directed. The Court reasoned that the six-month period must be calculated from the date of assumption of office by the specific Chairman facing the motion, not from the date of a motion against a predecessor. The key principle laid down is that the statutory restriction on no-confidence motions is personal to the incumbent Chairman, ensuring that a successor is not subjected to a motion before completing six months in office.

  Questions settled

  • Does the six-month interval requirement for a no-confidence motion under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 apply to the office of the Chairman generally or to the individual incumbent?
  • Can a no-confidence motion moved against a predecessor Chairman be used to calculate the six-month interval for a motion against a successor Chairman?
  • From what date is the six-month period for a no-confidence motion against a Chairman calculated under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and Others vs Mian Musharaf Shah (Represented by Legal1983 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01
  ejectmentreconstructionsubsequent applicationrent restrictionapproved plandilapidated condition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves fifteen appeals arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants for the reconstruction of commercial shops. The core legal question is whether a subsequent ejectment application on the ground of reconstruction is barred under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when a previous application on similar grounds was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the subsequent ejectment application was maintainable because the landlord had remedied the earlier legal deficiency by obtaining proper sanction, approval, and an approved plan from the Municipal Corporation, and the previous order had expressly clarified that it did not preclude future reconstruction. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent eviction application for reconstruction is not barred where the previous application failed due to a lack of statutory prerequisites like an approved building plan and the prior order permitted future applications upon compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent ejectment application for reconstruction is barred under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, if the previous application was dismissed due to lack of an approved building plan?
  • Does the dismissal of a prior ejectment application preclude a landlord from seeking eviction for reconstruction after fulfilling the mandatory legal requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Nihala vs The State1983 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19
  death penalty commutationsudden fightpremeditationcriminal appealsentence mitigationocular evidenceself-defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant, Nihala, was originally sentenced to death for the murder of Nur Muhammad, following a dispute over tube-well water pricing. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the contention that the occurrence was a sudden fight rather than a premeditated attack, and that the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the accused. Upon review, the Court found that the evidence supported the defense's position that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel where both parties sustained injuries. Consequently, the Court held that the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal to the extent of modifying the sentence, commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment, and imposing a fine. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of sudden fights where premeditation is absent, the imposition of the death penalty is not justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight between parties negate the premeditation required for the imposition of the death penalty?
  • Is the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution a relevant factor in determining the nature of the fight?
  • Can the Supreme Court alter a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the finding that the occurrence was not a premeditated attack?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ud Din vs Chand Muhammad and Other1983 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11
  civil suitlimitationlachestransfer of propertysettlement departmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed house in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner's civil suit and writ petition challenging the transfer documents issued to the respondent were maintainable despite being heavily barred by time and affected by laches. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the High Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's suit and constitutional petition as hopelessly time-barred, noting that the petitioner had surrendered possession in 1963-1964 and failed to provide any explanation for remaining silent for over a decade. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, inordinate delay and limitation bars a party from seeking equitable or civil remedies regarding property transfer disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit challenging property transfer documents is barred by time when filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches when the petitioner fails to explain a delay spanning over fourteen years?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts and the High Court regarding a suit being time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad vs Muhammad Shaft and Other1983 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26
  ejectmentbona fide personal neednon-residential buildingjoint landlordsleave to appealrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court regarding a commercial property in Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved whether a building leased as a shop ceases to be a non-residential building because a portion is used for residence, and whether an ejectment application for personal bona fide need can be maintained by multiple joint landlords for the requirement of only one of them. The Supreme Court held that leasing a property as a single unit shop establishes its character as a non-residential building, and subsequent residential use of a part (Chaubara) does not alter this status. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance permits an ejectment application based on the bona fide personal need of any single landlord among a body of joint landlords. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a building leased as a shop lose its character as a non-residential building if a portion of it is subsequently used for residential purposes?
  • Must all joint landlords establish a bona fide personal need to seek ejectment of a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can an application for ejectment be maintained by joint landlords for the personal need of only one of them?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Muhammad and Aother vs Muhammad Yasin And Another1983 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13
  leave to appealsettlement propertycomposite propertytransfer of propertycommercial premisesresidential house
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed room forming part of a composite property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the room formed part of the residential house transferred to the petitioners or constituted an independent commercial unit, and whether the Settlement Commissioner had duly applied his mind and decided the matter under the relevant statutory provisions when reversing the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the Settlement Commissioner's due application of mind and exercise of powers under the statute required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed security to be furnished, and ordered the appeal to be made ready for an early hearing based on the existing record with liberty to add further documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Settlement Commissioner's order can be referred to the provisions of subsection (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 without a conscious decision?
  • Did the Settlement Commissioner apply his mind while choosing to uphold the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a composite property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs Ziaul Haq and Other1983 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationstatutory baildelay in trialmurderjurisdiction3rd proviso section 497 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents charged with murder and attempted murder. The High Court had granted bail based on the ground that although the respondents had been in custody for 15 months, the trial was unlikely to commence for another two years, and on a re-evaluation of the injuries attributed to them, despite the Supreme Court having previously dismissed their bail petition on merits. The Supreme Court addressed whether lower courts can grant bail on merits after a Supreme Court refusal, and whether statutory bail under the 3rd Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies before the full statutory period of detention expires. The Supreme Court held that lower courts lack jurisdiction to grant bail on merits once the Supreme Court has rejected bail on those grounds. It further held that the third proviso to Section 497(1) requires continuous detention exceeding two years for capital offences, making statutory bail mandatory only upon fulfilling these exact conditions, and that courts possess no residuary discretion to grant bail for lesser or anticipated delays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail on merits after the Supreme Court has previously refused bail on the same merits?
  • Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the grant of bail on the ground of apprehended or expected delay before the completion of the prescribed period of continuous detention?
  • Do courts retain residuary discretionary power to grant bail on general grounds of delay for periods shorter than those specified in the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The State1983 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26
  criminal revisioninherent powersreview of judgmentstolen propertyreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition directed against orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal revision and a subsequent application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining stolen property and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal and subsequent revision were dismissed, though the petitioner alleged the judge had orally announced acceptance. A later application for correction or review before another judge was dismissed holding that a judgment cannot be reviewed under Section 561-A. The core legal questions concerned the reviewability of a reasoned criminal judgment under Section 561-A and the quantum of sentence where proceedings were prolonged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly ruled it could not review the earlier signed judgment under Section 561-A, and upheld the conviction under Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, considering the prolonged delay and that the petitioner had already served a substantial portion of his sentence, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review or alter its earlier signed criminal judgment through an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an oral pronouncement differing from a subsequently signed and reasoned written judgment carries legal weight in criminal proceedings?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of prolonged delays in deciding post-conviction applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir and Another vs The Member, Board of Revenue and Another1983 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30
  land reformssuo motu reviewlimitation periodadministrative reviewstatutory interpretationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions challenging a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the exercise of review powers under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959. The core legal question is whether the power of review conferred upon the Chief Land Commissioner, Land Commissioner, or Deputy Land Commissioner under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, is subject to a ten-day limitation period when exercised suo motu, or if that limitation applies exclusively to applications filed by interested parties. The petitioners argued that while prior jurisprudence suggested the ten-day limit applied only to party-initiated reviews, the significant delay in the present case—nearly six years—distinguished it from previous precedents. Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that Rule 11(3) explicitly allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors at any time, implying that the absence of such language in Rule 11(1) suggests a limitation period must exist. Finding merit in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the scope and temporal limitations of the suo motu review power.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ten-day limitation period prescribed in Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, apply to suo motu reviews initiated by Land Commissioners?
  • Does the express provision for correcting clerical errors at any time in Rule 11(3) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, imply that other review powers under Rule 11(1) are subject to a limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Atta Muhammad and Other1983 SCMR 1054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-11
  irrigation outletcivil injunctionres judicatafinality of decreeCanal and Drainage Actexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the shifting of an irrigation outlet, which had been the subject of multiple rounds of litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. The Canal authorities had attempted to rectify an alleged error regarding the outlet's location, but these attempts were repeatedly struck down by civil courts due to procedural non-compliance with the Canal and Drainage Act. Following a final decree that restrained the authorities from re-opening the matter, the Canal authorities initiated fresh proceedings, prompting the respondents to seek enforcement under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Civil Court ordered the withdrawal of these proceedings, a decision upheld by the District Judge and subsequently the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the previous civil court decree, which had attained finality after being affirmed in second appeal, effectively barred the Canal authorities from re-opening the matter. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly interpreted the scope and finality of the earlier injunction decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a final decree of a civil court restraining canal authorities from re-opening a matter regarding an irrigation outlet preclude them from initiating fresh proceedings?
  • Can canal authorities initiate new proceedings to shift an irrigation outlet after a previous court decree has declared their prior attempts null and void?
  • Is a High Court's interpretation of a previous civil court decree subject to interference by the Supreme Court when the decree has attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State1983 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-13
  compromisemitigating circumstancecommutation of sentencedeath penaltycompensationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Nazar Muhammad, was convicted by the Trial Court for murder and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the complainant party (the deceased's uncle and father) and the petitioner informed the Court that they had reached an amicable settlement, with the petitioner paying Rs. 40,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Relying on precedents established in Muhammad Bashir v. The State and Asghar Ali v. The State, the parties requested that this compromise be considered a mitigating circumstance regarding the sentence. The Supreme Court, satisfied that a genuine compromise had been reached and compensation paid, converted the petition into an appeal. The Court held that the compromise served as a mitigating factor, warranting a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, set aside the fine, and granted the petitioner the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be treated as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Does the payment of compensation to the heirs of a deceased victim justify setting aside a fine imposed on the convict?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs Shah Sawar (through His L. Rs.)1983 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28
  interim injunctionstatus quogift deedcustomary lawjoint possessionpending appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  Nazar Hussain appellant filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from raising construction over the suit land pending disposal of Appeal No. 133 of 1982. The underlying dispute arose from a gift deed executed on 31-12-1958, which was challenged by the appellant through a suit for joint possession under customary law. The suit was decreed in favor of the appellant, and successive appeals by the respondents were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court, culminating in leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the protection of the subject matter of the dispute from alteration during the pendency of the appeal to prevent irreparable loss. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, status quo ought to be maintained. The Court accordingly directed that no construction shall be raised on the disputed land until the final decision of the appeal, thereby establishing the principle that interim injunctive relief may be granted to preserve the property status quo during appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain construction on suit land pending the disposal of an appeal?
  • Does the maintenance of status quo apply to disputed land during appellate proceedings to prevent irreparable loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Din and Others vs The Secretary, Rural with Powers of the S. C1983 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-12
  limitationcondonation of delaytime-barred petitionmedical certificatesufficient causevaluable right
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The primary legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners had provided a sufficient and credible explanation to justify the condonation of a one-day delay in filing the petition. The petitioners contended that the delay was caused by the illness of the first petitioner, supporting this claim with an undated medical certificate issued by a Women Medical Officer. Upon examination, the Court found the medical certificate unreliable and noted inconsistencies in the timeline provided by the petitioners regarding the petitioner's ability to travel and file the petition in Lahore immediately following the alleged period of bed rest. Consequently, the Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Court affirmed the principle that where a valuable right has accrued to the opposing party, a delay in filing legal proceedings cannot be condoned without a robust and credible justification. Finding no such justification, the petition was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned based on an undated and unverified medical certificate?
  • Does the accrual of a valuable right in favor of the respondent influence the court's discretion to condone a delay in filing?
  • Is a one-day delay in filing a petition automatically excusable without a satisfactory explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ahd 2 Others vs The State1983 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15
  criminal appealsudden fightself-defencecattle trespassreduction of sentencedetention periodmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from a criminal trial involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, and hurt following a sudden fight over cattle trespass. The core legal question concerned whether the courts below adequately considered the plea of self-defence raised by the appellants, particularly in light of serious head injuries sustained by one of them during the incident. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the convictions recorded by the High Court, but noted that the appellants had already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the convictions but accepted it to the extent of reducing the sentences of the appellants to the period already undergone by them, applying the principle of proportional sentencing and statutory credit for pre-trial and post-conviction detention.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of self-defence was duly considered by the courts below when an accused sustained serious head injuries during a sudden fight?
  • Can the appellate court reduce the sentence of convicted persons to the period already undergone in view of prolonged detention and the application of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and 2 Others vs Shah Rukh1983 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-21
  leave to appealterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitionmaster and servantstatutory corporationintra-court appealpromotion cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court's Appeal Bench which dismissed their Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent. The respondents, employees of the petitioner-Bank, had their promotions cancelled without being afforded an opportunity of being heard. They challenged the cancellation through a constitutional petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge. The Intra-Court Appeals failed on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal or review was available under the rules. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the respondents, not being holders of statutory posts with statutory tenure, could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed a variance in previous decisions regarding territorial jurisdiction and noted the need for an authoritative pronouncement on whether employees of statutory corporations governed by internal rules can invoke Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the impugned orders of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction to challenge orders of reversion passed outside its territorial limits when the affected employees are stationed within its jurisdiction?
  • Whether employees of a statutory corporation who do not hold a statutory post or statutory tenure can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce rights arising from internal rules and bye-laws?
  • Whether failure to exhaust departmental remedies bars a constitutional petition when service rules are deemed to have the force of a statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Irrigation1983 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  service tribunalspecial leave to appealdraftsman qualificationprovisional appointmentservice rules interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the termination of his services as a draftsman in the Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for initial recruitment as a draftsman under Rule 7 of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962, having obtained a certificate from the Government School of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute, Rasul, rather than passing the formal Draftsmen's Examination mandated by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Service Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable as the petitioner's certificate merely indicated completion of a course rather than passing the required examination, and his provisional appointment was subject to government approval which was validly withheld due to lack of qualifications. The key principle laid down is that provisional appointments made subject to statutory qualification approvals are lawfully terminable if the candidate fails to meet the strict prescriptive criteria laid down in the governing service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate holding a course completion certificate rather than passing the prescribed draftsmen's examination fulfills the qualification requirements under the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962?
  • Does a provisional appointment made subject to government approval of qualifications create an enforceable right to the post when approval is withheld?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's finding regarding the interpretation of service qualification rules when the candidate lacks the mandated credentials?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain and Another vs The State1983 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29
  leave to appealculpable homicidecommon intentionprovocationdeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions of the petitioners, Nasir Hussain and Ghulam Hussain, for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. The trial court had sentenced Nasir Hussain to death and Ghulam Hussain to life imprisonment for the murder committed with lathis. The petitioners contend that the offence should be mitigated from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the deceased provoked the attack by violating a prior compromise agreement to avoid the village. Furthermore, the petitioners challenge the application of Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding common intention, asserting that the fatal injury was a single blow by Nasir Hussain and that the death sentence was disproportionate given the provocation. The Supreme Court, finding that these contentions regarding the nature of the offence, the applicability of common intention, and the appropriateness of the death sentence require further judicial consideration, granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the violation of a prior compromise agreement by a deceased person constitute sufficient provocation to reduce a charge of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • Can a co-accused be held liable under the principle of common intention for a fatal injury inflicted by another when the remaining injuries are merely simple?
  • Is a sentence of death appropriate when the victim has effectively invited the attack by violating a prior agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmad vs Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller No. 1, Karachi and1983 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-11
  rent restrictionarrears of renttentative rent determinationejectment proceedingsspecial leave to appealstrike off defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, regarding the determination of arrears and monthly rent during ejectment proceedings. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller's determination of rent under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is of a final nature, unlike the tentative assessment previously provided under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The High Court held that the order passed under Section 16 is of a tentative nature, as quantum of rent is finally decided under Section 19 of the Ordinance. Finding the question to be of general public importance affecting numerous cases, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to provide an authoritative decision while declining to stay the operation of the Rent Controller's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of rent by a Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is of a tentative or final nature?
  • Does Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 differ materially in its effect from Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding the adjustment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Nandlal and Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and Another1983 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  constitutional jurisdictionpermanent transfer deedsettlement authoritieslocus standiquestion of factproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of a portion of urban property by the settlement authorities and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional petition by the Sind High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the Settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to modify transfer documents after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed and whether pure questions of fact regarding property identification and alleged record tampering could be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that questions of fact not raised before the Settlement authorities cannot be agitated in constitutional proceedings, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfer of a portion of the property that was never lawfully transferred to them. The key principle laid down is that factual controversies and allegations of record tampering must be raised in the appropriate forum below, and a petitioner cannot question the transfer of property portions outside their own valid title.

  Questions settled

  • Can questions of fact and allegations of record tampering not raised before the settlement authorities be agitated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does a property owner holding a permanent transfer deed have the locus standi to question the transfer of a separate portion of property that was never included in their own transfer documents?
  • Do settlement authorities retain the power to correct or clarify transfer orders and deeds when portions of properties are found to be amalgamated or incorrectly described?
  Read full judgment →
• Namdar and 2 Others vs The Additional Settlement Commissioner1983 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13
  leave to appealevacuee propertyallotment of landnew evidencereview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings concerning the cancellation of a land allotment. The Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the petitioners' allotment upon discovering that the land in dispute was Provincial Government property rather than evacuee land, making it unallotable under the relevant evacuee laws. The petitioners' constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to rely upon new documentary evidence, specifically entries in an auction register, to demonstrate that the land was evacuee property prior to Partition, explaining that certified copies were unavailable during the High Court proceedings. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether an order of the High Court could be set aside on the basis of new material that was not produced before it. The Supreme Court held that it could not interfere with the High Court's judgment on the basis of unexamined material, affirming that the High Court's decision was unexceptionable based on the record presented to it. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with the observation that petitioners could seek review before the High Court if permitted by law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on new evidence or documents that were not produced before the High Court?
  • Whether an allotment of land under evacuee laws remains valid if the property is determined to belong to the Provincial Government rather than being evacuee land?
  Read full judgment →
• Najam Saeed and Others vs Mst. Bashiran1983 PLD Supreme Court 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-20
  ejectmentexecution proceedingsobjection petitiontenancy rightslandlord-tenant disputepossessionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an objection petition filed during the execution of an ejectment decree obtained by the respondent-landlady against two tenants. The appellants, claiming to be tenants in possession of the property, challenged the execution proceedings. The primary legal issue concerned the adjudication of objection petitions filed by third parties claiming tenancy rights, specifically whether such objectors must surrender possession before their objections are heard, and whether the appellants had established their tenancy over the disputed premises. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the evidence, determined that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim of tenancy over the property in question, except for a specific shop or clinic. The Court observed that the appellants' possession of the remaining premises was derived from the judgment-debtors against whom an ejectment order had already been passed. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants were obligated to deliver possession to the decree-holder. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellants could not resist execution based on unsubstantiated claims of tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to produce rent receipts to identify the specific property claimed as a tenancy cast doubt upon the validity of the claim?
  • Are occupants who derive their possession from judgment-debtors subject to the same ejectment order as the original judgment-debtors?
  • Is an objection petition regarding possession maintainable when the objector fails to prove their independent tenancy over the disputed premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad and Another vs Manzoor Ahmad and Other1983 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  adverse possessionamendment of pleadingsinconsistent pleascivil revisionsuit for possessionjurisdiction of civil courtlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision in a suit for possession based on title. The core legal questions were whether the defendants could introduce a plea of adverse possession after the initial written statement, and whether they could simultaneously claim ownership while arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the defendants were not entitled to introduce the plea of adverse possession because it was not raised in the original pleadings and was inconsistent with their primary defense of ownership. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a party cannot be permitted to raise mutually inconsistent pleas through an amendment, especially when the application is belated. The Court also noted that the defendants had conceded the plaintiffs' ownership before the appellate court. The key principle laid down is that amendments to pleadings that introduce inconsistent, contradictory, or highly belated defenses should be disallowed, and parties are bound by the pleadings originally presented to the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant introduce a plea of adverse possession through an amendment if it was not raised in the original written statement?
  • Is a party permitted to raise mutually inconsistent pleas in a civil suit?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a civil court by asserting a landlord-tenant relationship after previously claiming independent ownership of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustaqeem Khan vs Muhammad Ismail and Other1983 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  land allotmentwrit jurisdictionexcess allotmentex parte orderadministrative cancellationProduce Index UnitsDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments. The petitioner, having been allotted land based on verified Produce Index Units, faced cancellation of an alleged excess allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having identified a procedural error in the dismissal of the petitioner's application for the recall of an ex parte order, was legally obligated to remand the case to the Settlement authorities rather than dismissing the writ petition on merits. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court found the actual allotment remaining in the petitioner's name was consistent with his verified entitlement, and this fact remained uncontroverted, the cancellation of the excess land was substantively correct. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, establishing the principle that where the substantive outcome of an administrative order is demonstrably correct and uncontroverted, a court may decline to interfere in writ jurisdiction despite procedural irregularities in the lower administrative proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to remand a case to administrative authorities if it identifies a procedural error in the dismissal of an application for the recall of an ex parte order?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed if the substantive outcome of the challenged administrative order is found to be correct and uncontroverted?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq and Others vs The State and Another1983 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-21
  bail cancellationnon-appearancefatal blowscriminal appealjudicial discretionbail restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The High Court's cancellation was primarily based on the petitioners' failure to appear in court despite service of notice. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of bail was justified given the circumstances and the merits of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the appellants attributed with inflicting fatal blows were not entitled to bail, thereby dismissing their appeal. However, the Court found the remaining appellants entitled to bail, setting aside the High Court's cancellation order and restoring the original bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle established is that while bail cancellation may be considered for non-appearance, the appellate court retains the discretion to evaluate the merits of the case to determine whether the accused are entitled to bail, distinguishing between those attributed with specific fatal acts and those with lesser roles.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person who is attributed with fatal blows entitled to bail?
  • Can an appellate court restore a bail order that was previously cancelled by the High Court?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear in court justify the cancellation of bail regardless of the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq and Another vs Shahzad Akhtar and Another1983 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-29
  bail cancellationcommon intentionpre-planned designcriminal conspiracymurderpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the High Court. The petitioners, Mushtaq and Muhammad Iqbal, were accused alongside a co-accused, Muhammad Hanif, of attacking the complainant and his brother, resulting in a fatality and injuries. While the Additional Sessions Judge initially granted bail to the petitioners on the grounds that the fatal blow was not attributed to them, the High Court subsequently cancelled this bail. The High Court reasoned that the accused acted in concert pursuant to a pre-planned design, with all participants being armed with knives (chhuris). The core legal question was whether the High Court's cancellation of bail was justified given the circumstances of the alleged common intention and concerted action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, finding no valid grounds to interfere with the lower court's assessment that the petitioners' participation in a pre-planned attack warranted the cancellation of bail. The principle affirmed is that bail may be cancelled where evidence suggests the accused acted in concert in a criminal design.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of bail by a High Court justified when the accused are alleged to have acted in concert in a pre-planned attack?
  • Does the absence of a fatal blow attribution to specific petitioners automatically entitle them to bail in a case involving concerted criminal action?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1983 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-04
  murderdeath sentencedying declarationocular testimonyleave to appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's murder appeal by the Peshawar High Court, wherein the petitioner was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two persons and sentenced to death on each count. The core legal questions involved the reliability of multiple dying declarations, the credibility of ocular witnesses who were employees of the complainant, and the implications of discrepancies regarding weapon recovery and the absence of blood at the crime scene. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded, affirming that the dying declarations—duly attested by medical officers—and the trustworthy ocular testimony sufficiently established the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down the principle that minor variations in injury sizes do not negate ocular and dying declarations, and that the absence of blood at a crime scene is satisfactorily explained where medical evidence shows the nature of the injuries did not cause external oozing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when recorded in the presence of an allegedly inimical complainant?
  • Does the absence of blood at the spot of a firearm occurrence invalidate the prosecution's case regarding the place of occurrence?
  • Whether minor differences in the size of firearm injuries are sufficient to establish the presence of multiple assailants?
  • Can the testimony of ocular witnesses who are employees of the complainant be discarded solely on the ground of their employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Musalli Khan and Another vs Mst. Sardara1983 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-25
  Islamic Lawinheritanceuterine sistershare entitlementMuhammadan Lawsuccession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns an inheritance dispute regarding the estate of a common ancestor, Khadi Khan. The respondent, Mst. Sardara, claimed shares in the property as the uterine sister of the deceased Ajun and as the daughter of Qabil Shah. The trial court decreed her a 5/27th share, which the appellate court subsequently modified to a 2/5th share. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the determination of the correct share entitlement of a uterine sister under Islamic Law. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in their calculation of the respondent's share. Relying on established principles of Muhammadan Law, the Court clarified that a uterine sister is entitled to a 1/6th share of the deceased's estate, rather than the larger portion previously awarded. Consequently, the Court modified the lower court's decree to reflect the correct 1/6th share entitlement for the respondent, rejecting alternative arguments regarding the calculation of shares based on the sequence of deaths of other family members.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct share entitlement of a uterine sister in the estate of a deceased under Muhammadan Law?
  • Can a court modify a decree based on an incorrect calculation of inheritance shares under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan vs Fazalesubhan and Another1983 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailattempt to murderulterior motivesmala fideharassmentbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving an attempt to commit murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted in accordance with well-established principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by examining only the merits of the injury without considering the essential pre-condition for pre-arrest bail, namely, whether the apprehension of arrest stems from ulterior motives, malice, or a design to cause unwarranted humiliation and harassment. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court laid down the principle that the presence of mala fides or political victimization is a mandatory consideration for granting pre-arrest bail, and without satisfying this condition, anticipatory bail cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of ulterior motives or mala fide is a necessary pre-condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can anticipatory bail be granted solely by examining the merits of the physical injuries without establishing apprehension of arrest due to victimization?
  • Did the introduction of Section 498-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 change the established principles for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Shafi and Other1983 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03
  local government electiondisqualification of candidatesretrospective operation of lawservice of Pakistanelection petitionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the disqualification of the appellant, a former government servant, from membership in a Local Council. The appellant resigned from service and contested an election within two years, violating Section 99(d) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, which was incorporated into the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Election Tribunal removed him from membership. The core legal question was whether the subsequent amendment to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, via Ordinance VI of 1981, which introduced a proviso removing certain disqualifications, applied retrospectively to validate the appellant's membership. The Supreme Court held that the amendment, specifically the addition of subsection (2) to section 21, operated retrospectively. The Court ruled that the disqualification incurred by former government servants who resigned or retired (otherwise than by punishment) was removed ab initio. Consequently, the appellant's removal was set aside, and his membership was restored, establishing the principle that the amending Ordinance validated the status of such members notwithstanding prior orders or judgments removing them based on the now-removed disqualification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, via Ordinance VI of 1981, operate retrospectively to remove disqualifications for local council membership?
  • Are former government servants who resigned from service eligible to be members of a local council despite the two-year restriction period under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976, following the 1981 amendment?
  • Can a member of a local council removed by an election tribunal be restored to membership if a subsequent legislative amendment removes the ground for their disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Khaliqur Rahman and Other1983 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-13
  private defencemurderacquittalunexplained injuriesappreciation of evidencecriminal petitionpossession dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks to challenge the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court, which set aside their conviction and death sentences for murder and attempt to murder arising from an armed clash over the possession of a plot. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the right of private defence and the credibility of the prosecution's version in light of unexplained injuries on the accused party and a suppressed title document. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's conclusion was unassailable on the weight of evidence. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence and sets up a colourable and unproved claim of title to dispossess a person in settled possession, the plea of private defence of person and property raised by the accused is reasonably established, warranting acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused party supports the defence version of the incident?
  • Can a criminal petition against an acquittal be maintained when the High Court's conclusions are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and the right of private defence?
  • Whether the production of a disputed and unproved title document for the first time at the trial stage affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Ahmad Din and Another1983 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01
  ejectmentpersonal needgood faithlandlord and tenantconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlords under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 seeking the eviction of the tenant from a shop in Faisalabad on the ground of personal need, as one of the landlords intended to start a cloth merchant business jointly with his brother through his son. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and both the appellate court and the Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's subsequent appeals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure of the landlord's son to appear as a witness vitiated the concurrent findings of fact regarding good faith and personal need. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were unexceptionable as the landlord himself deposed and established the personal need, and the appreciation of evidence by the lower forums suffered from no legal or procedural error. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of a landlord's son as a witness is fatal to an ejectment application based on personal need where the landlord himself has deposed to establish the same?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in the absence of any legal or procedural error?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Veh Ari vs Hashmat Ali1983 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-28
  civil revisiondismissal from servicemunicipal employeejurisdictionmaterial irregularitymaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order accepting a revision petition and setting aside the dismissal of the respondent, a permanent employee of the Municipal Committee, Vehari. The core legal question is whether the High Court, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, can interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts upholding a departmental dismissal that was allegedly based on no evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered under section 115, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as dismissing an employee without any evidence constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity by the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must exercise their powers consistently with the governing statute, and courts possess the jurisdiction to declare an employment termination illegal and ultra vires when it is unsupported by any evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 with a departmental dismissal upheld by subordinate courts?
  • Does the dismissal of an employee without any evidence amount to acting in the exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity?
  • Are the powers of a statutory body subject to the constituting statute when determining the employment of a servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The State1983 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-02
  culpable homicidemurderintention versus knowledgefatal weapon injuryfemoral arteryalteration of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the appellant inflicted a single dagger blow to the left thigh of the deceased, cutting the femoral vessels and causing death due to shock and haemorrhage, arising from a previous altercation over a kite. Leave was granted to examine whether the appellant, being a layman, possessed the knowledge of the location of human arteries, and whether the offence fell under section 326 or section 304 Part II instead of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that since the injury was not on a vital part of the body and the appellant could not be attributed with the specific intention to kill or cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, only knowledge likely to cause death could be imputed. Consequently, the conviction was altered from section 302 to section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a single dagger blow to the thigh resulting in the severance of the femoral artery constitutes murder under section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a layman attacking with a dagger on a non-vital part of the body like the thigh be imputed with the specific intention to kill or only the knowledge likely to cause death?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar and 5 Others vs The State1983 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04
  land disputeself-defensebenefit of doubtmutual combatexecution of decreecriminal appealpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of the appellants for rioting and murder arising from a land dispute. The core legal questions concerned the validity of possession delivery by revenue staff without civil court execution, the applicability of self-defense, and the evidentiary weight of injuries sustained by both parties in a mutual combat scenario. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove legal delivery of possession, as the mere passing of a civil decree does not constitute execution without proper procedure. Furthermore, because both parties suppressed the true origin of the conflict, the Court rejected the prosecution's ocular version as unreliable. Applying the principle that in mutual combat cases where facts are suppressed, the court must draw inferences from established circumstances rather than relying on disputed testimony, the Court found the plea of self-defense unavailable but held that the prosecution failed to establish the specific roles of all accused. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to several appellants, modifying the convictions of the remaining appellants to attempted murder under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere passing of a civil court decree for possession of immovable property constitute proof of delivery of possession?
  • Can revenue staff unilaterally execute a civil court decree for possession of immovable property without a formal order of the civil court?
  • How should a court determine criminal liability when both parties in a violent conflict suppress the true origin of the incident?
  • Is the plea of self-defense available to an accused who launches a sustained and determined attack despite the complainant party being armed only with sticks?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs Election Tribunal and Other1983 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-21
  election petitionsecrecy of ballotapprobate and reprobatewrit jurisdictionlocal government electionvoid election
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding an election dispute for the Union Council Basharat. The petitioner, Mulazim Hussain, was initially declared elected, but the Election Tribunal subsequently declared the election void after finding that markings on ballot papers violated the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision in the High Court. Upon review, the High Court accepted the petitioner's own argument that the entire election should be declared void rather than merely unseating him. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to argue that the High Court erred in declaring the election void, claiming the markings were not a violation of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the High Court's decision when the High Court had merely granted the specific relief the petitioner had requested in his own writ petition. The Court affirmed that a party cannot complain of an order that aligns with their own pleaded position.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge a High Court judgment that grants the specific relief requested in their own writ petition?
  • Does the principle of approbate and reprobate prevent a party from challenging an order that aligns with their own arguments before the lower court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar vs Khakan and Other1983 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21
  pre-emptioncontiguityKhasra numberscivil appealappellate procedurenew plealand law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of agricultural land involving multiple Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor could successfully claim a Khasra number that was not contiguous to their own land, specifically when an intervening property, identified as a thoroughfare, separated the two. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emption claim regarding the non-contiguous Khasra number must fail. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that being in the same Khata was sufficient for pre-emption regardless of contiguity. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain a new plea regarding participation in common amenities as it was not raised or pressed during the trial or first appellate stages. The principle laid down is that the right of pre-emption based on contiguity requires actual physical contiguity; where an intervening property separates the lands, the right cannot be exercised. Additionally, appellate courts will not permit the introduction of new legal grounds or pleas that were not raised or pressed in the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption claim succeed for land that is not contiguous to the pre-emptor's property?
  • Does the existence of an intervening thoroughfare defeat a claim of contiguity in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a party introduce a new ground for pre-emption, such as participation in common amenities, for the first time in the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain vs The State1983 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04
  leave to appealmurdercapital punishmentre-appraisal of evidencefirst information reportocular testimonycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mujahid Hussain against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the murder of Abbas. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroboration of motive, and the credibility of recoveries and the first information report, which was repudiated at trial by its maker. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a thorough re-appraisal of the ocular evidence, recovery evidence, and motive is necessary to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice and to establish whether the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where crucial prosecution witnesses, including the maker of the first information report, repudiate or fail to consistently support the case, the apex court will grant leave to re-examine the evidence to prevent potential miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the maker of the first information report repudiates the same?
  • Is a re-appraisal of ocular and recovery evidence warranted when inconsistencies arise regarding the motive for an offense?
  • Does the delayed arrest of an accused cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution case to merit a re-examination of the evidence by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Other1983SCMR781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30
  service lawleave to appealapplicable rulesadministrative adjudicationremandservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's case was adjudicated under the incorrect service rules. The petitioner contended that the authorities erroneously applied the West Pakistan Health Department Vaccination Subordinate Service Rules, 1968, instead of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1953, which were the governing regulations for the matter. The Supreme Court found merit in this contention, noting that the application of the wrong set of rules constituted a legal error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must adjudicate service matters strictly under the appropriate and applicable statutory rules; failure to apply the correct governing legislation renders the impugned order unsustainable and necessitates a remand for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the application of incorrect service rules by an administrative authority constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
  • Should a case be remanded for a fresh decision if it was originally adjudicated under the wrong set of service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Malik Muhammad Amir and Other1983 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04
  leave to appeallocal commissionerdelegation of judicial functionspermanent injunctionsecond appealdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 16-6-1982 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's regular second appeal was dismissed in limine. The underlying matter arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions relating to an alleged encroachment and a door opening towards his land, which was initially dismissed by a Civil Judge and subsequently upheld by the District Judge. During the first appeal, a Local Commissioner was appointed to measure the area and submit a report, which went against the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge unlawfully delegated his judicial functions by relying on the Local Commissioner's report. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted documents for appraisal by the Local Commissioner and had withdrawn his objections to the report after they were invited. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that a party cannot legitimately grievance against a Local Commissioner's report when the actions were undertaken at the party's own instance and objections were subsequently withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a District Judge unlawfully delegates judicial functions by relying on a Local Commissioner's report after inviting and considering objections?
  • Can a party legitimately challenge a Local Commissioner's report when the proceedings before the commissioner were conducted at that party's own instance?
  • Is a grievance regarding a Local Commissioner's report maintainable after the objecting party has formally withdrawn its objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1983 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03
  quashment of proceedingscriminal procedurejurisdiction of special judgeanti-corruptionprejudice in trialgovernment servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The petitioner, a government school teacher, contended that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the case and that certain remarks in the High Court's judgment were prejudicial to his fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the question of guilt under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 must be determined by the trial court based on evidence. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the apprehension of prejudice, noting the High Court's explicit observation that the trial judge should decide the case on its merits without being influenced by the High Court's remarks. Consequently, the petition was found to be without substance and was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, have jurisdiction to try a government servant for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Can a petition for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted solely on the basis of apprehended prejudice from a High Court's observations?
  • Should a trial court be influenced by remarks made by a High Court in a judgment dismissing a petition for quashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Abdul Majid and 5 Other1983 SCMR 100(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-21
  leave to appealmurdersudden fightself-defenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of two respondents (Abdul Majid and Nazir Ahmed) and maintained the acquittal of the remaining respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in treating the incident as a case of outright aggression and self-defence without properly examining whether it constituted a sudden fight attracting Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question regarding the two convicted respondents, while dismissing the petition as not pressed concerning the other respondents. The Supreme Court laid down that in cases involving mutual altercation and injuries on both sides, the courts must carefully examine the evidence to determine the applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code pertaining to sudden fights, rather than prematurely concluding self-defence or aggression without such analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in treating the case as one of self-defence without examining the applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a sudden fight involving mutual injuries warrant an examination under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than an outright finding of self-defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1983 SCMR 102(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-13
  post-arrest bailparity in bailcriminal appealco-accusedbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as his co-accused, Muhammad Arif, who had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. Upon reviewing the circumstances and the parity of the petitioner's case with that of the co-accused, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar treatment. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate. The judgment reinforces the principle of parity in bail matters, where co-accused similarly situated should generally receive consistent treatment regarding bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail if their case is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad Hassan And Other1983 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantadmissibility of evidencephotostat copyconcurrent findingsleave to appealtitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction proceeding where the tenant and the previous owner disputed the landlord's title. The landlord asserted ownership based on a registered sale-deed and produced a photostat copy of the deed before the Rent Controller. No objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the admissibility of the photostat copy before either the Rent Controller or the first appellate court, both of whom concurrently found the relationship of landlord and tenant established. The High Court, on review, declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact, noting the lack of timely objection to the document's admissibility. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that since the previous owner had already filed a separate civil suit challenging the sale transaction, it would not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact at the instance of a petitioner who is merely a tenant. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party object to the admissibility of a photostat copy of a document for the first time in review or second appeal if no objection was raised before the trial and first appellate forums?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant at the instance of a tenant when a separate civil suit challenging the landlord's title is already pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and Others vs The State1983 PLD Supreme Court 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-16
  right of private defenceself-defencemurderappreciation of evidencegood faithgolden scales doctrinecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a murder case where leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the right of private defence was wrongly denied to the petitioners. The High Court had disbelieved the prosecution's initial story of an ambush by the accused and found that the appellant Islam received injuries first from the complainant party, but nevertheless negated the plea of self-defence solely on the ground that the numerous injuries inflicted on the deceased and prosecution witnesses took the case outside the ambit of private defence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in considering the mere number of injuries as the sole test under Section 99 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while ignoring other vital factors such as the nature of the injuries, the weapons used, the apprehension of danger, and good faith. The Court established that actions in self-defence must not be weighed in golden scales, and that the infliction of severe injuries does not negate the right of private defence where the accused acted in good faith to protect life against lethal attack. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether after disbelieving the prosecution's ambush story and finding that the accused received injuries first, the right of private defence is completely unavailable?
  • Does the mere number of injuries inflicted by the accused take a case outside the ambit of private defence under Section 99 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should acts done in the heat of the moment in self-defence be weighed in golden scales?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 Other1983 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08
  rejection of plaintunsound mindnext friendcivil revisionwrit jurisdictionsubsequent material
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act where defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint or appointment of a next friend, alleging the plaintiff was of unsound mind. The trial court rejected the application, and the revisional court dismissed the subsequent revision, noting the applicant failed to apply under Order XXXII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for taking the plaint off the record to inquire into the plaintiff's mental capacity. A subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, attempting to introduce new material in the form of a subsequent statement made before a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that subsequent material cannot be used to determine the correctness of past judicial orders and declined to interfere with the High Court's decision in writ jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can subsequent material arising after the impugned orders be referred to for deciding the correctness of orders already passed by lower courts?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction against orders dismissing an application regarding a plaintiff's unsoundness of mind warrants Supreme Court interference?
  • Is an application under Order XXXII rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessary for taking a plaint off the record regarding the unsoundness of mind of a plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and Another vs Muhammad Ismail1983 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02
  pre-emptionconcurrent findingsregular second appealcustom of pre-emptionpre-emptiable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning a property in Mauza Khangarh, Muzaffargarh. The petitioners purchased a property, which the respondent claimed was a house subject to pre-emption, while the petitioners contended it was a shop and thus not pre-emptiable. The trial court determined the property was originally built for residential purposes and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the lower appellate court failed to address all issues raised in the appeal, specifically contending that the High Court misconstrued their arguments regarding the scope of their challenge. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's judgment, finding that the High Court had correctly recorded the arguments of both parties. The Court held that since the issue of the existence of the custom of pre-emption was a concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts, there was no legal justification for interference. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a custom of pre-emption in a locality?
  • Does a failure by an appellate court to discuss all issues in a judgment necessarily render the judgment illegal if the core findings are supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →