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.

• Kala Khan and Others vs Misri Khan and Other1979 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-31
  review petitionscope of reviewdoctrine of expectation of lifereversal of acquittalcapital sentenceappraisal of evidenceSection 302 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's majority judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1977, which had set aside their acquittal by the Lahore High Court and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing the first petitioner to death and the second petitioner to imprisonment for life. The review was sought on grounds including non-consideration of defence evidence, erroneous appraisal of tainted evidence, a dissenting judge agreeing with the High Court, and entitlement to a lesser penalty under the doctrine of expectation of life. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the defence evidence had indeed been considered and that re-appraisal of evidence is outside the scope of review as it amounts to re-hearing the appeal. The Court further ruled that the majority decision prevails and that the doctrine of expectation of life does not apply to an erroneous order causing a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly where there is no inordinate delay in deciding the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether re-appreciation of evidence on merits is permissible within the scope of a review petition?
  • Whether the existence of a dissenting judicial opinion on the bench constitutes a valid ground for review of a majority judgment?
  • Does the doctrine of expectation of life apply to reduce a death sentence upon the reversal of an erroneous acquittal where there is no inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and Other vs Sher Muhammad and Another1979 PLD Supreme Court 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11
  Jammu and Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentland cancellationnatural justicerehabilitation settlement schemeevacuee propertyrepeal act
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted writ petitions filed by respondents challenging the cancellation of their temporary agricultural land allotments. The respondents, displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir, were allotted land temporarily in 1959, which was later purportedly cancelled in 1968 without notice to them, and subsequently re-allotted to the petitioners. The core legal questions involve whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees could be cancelled behind their backs and re-allotted to other claimants, and whether such temporary allottees are protected under settlement laws and repeal enactments. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation orders passed without affording an opportunity of being heard were void and without lawful authority, and that paragraph 4-A (ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as well as section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 protect the temporary allottees' rights to retain or purchase the land. The court laid down the principle that temporary allotments made to Jammu and Kashmir refugees cannot be arbitrarily cancelled without notice and that such allottees possess statutory protections against displacement by non-claimants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir can be cancelled without notice and opportunity of being heard?
  • Does paragraph 4-A(ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme exclude land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees from being allotted to other claimants?
  • What is the effect of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 on agricultural land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees?
  • Whether a failure of natural justice by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in cancelling an allotment can be ignored if not cured in appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamroz Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue, N. W. F. P. and Other1979 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-26
  writ petitionrevenue recordKhasra Girdawarireviewdepartmental authoritiesdiscretionary remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions involve whether the Assistant Commissioner's order rectifying the Khasra Girdawari violated section 163(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, whether the application was barred by limitation, and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having failed to raise the objection regarding prior permission for review before the departmental authorities, could not raise it for the first time in writ proceedings, and further found that the petitioner had no case in equity or law since he had been lawfully ejected in 1968 pursuant to a decree. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot urge a new legal objection in constitutional writ jurisdiction if it was not raised before the lower departmental forums, and discretionary writ remedies will not be issued in aid of injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the lack of prior permission for review under section 163(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the first time in writ proceedings?
  • Whether constitutional writ jurisdiction can be invoked in aid of injustice when a party has no case in equity or law?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Din vs Saeed Ahmad and Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-16
  pre-emptionright of successionagricultural landorder of successionstatutory rightpre-emptorvendee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner (vendee) challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed the suit in favor of the respondent (pre-emptor), the vendor's uncle. The core legal question was whether the existence of nearer heirs of the vendor, who were not parties to the suit, precluded a more remote heir from exercising the statutory right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right of pre-emption vests in the entire line of heirs in order of succession. The court established that the existence of a nearer heir who does not exercise their right does not bar a remoter heir from suing. The order of succession is only relevant in determining priority between competing claimants (pre-emptor versus vendee or rival suitor). Consequently, a remoter heir may validly maintain a pre-emption suit provided they are entitled to inherit under personal law, regardless of the existence of non-suing nearer heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a nearer heir who does not sue bar a more remote heir from exercising the right of pre-emption?
  • Is the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 vested in the whole line of heirs or only the nearest heir?
  • Can a pre-emptor maintain a suit for pre-emption if nearer heirs of the vendor exist but are not parties to the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad vs The State1979 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-29
  criminal reviewscope of reviewsentence reductionrapere-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition arising from criminal proceedings. The core legal question concerns the extent and scope of the Court's jurisdiction in a criminal review petition, specifically whether re-evaluation of evidence is permissible, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Irshad, who was convicted alongside his brother for rape based on the statement of the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court held that the scope of review in criminal matters is strictly confined to an error of law on the face of the order and does not permit a fresh examination of evidence. However, considering the circumstances of the case and with no objection from the State Counsel, the Court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that criminal review cannot be used as an avenue to re-examine evidence, though sentence modification may be considered under mitigating circumstances when consented to or unopposed by the State.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of review in criminal matters before the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court enter upon a fresh examination of evidence in a criminal review petition?
  • Under what circumstances can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad and Others vs The State1979 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-22
  bail pending appealsuspension of sentencediscretionary powerabductioncriminal appealspecific overt acts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to suspend the convictions and sentences of the petitioners pending their appeal. The petitioners, along with others, were convicted by a Magistrate for offences including abduction and rioting. While the High Court granted bail to some co-accused, it denied the same to the petitioners, citing specific allegations of physical involvement in the abduction and assault of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily in distinguishing the petitioners' cases from those of the co-accused who were granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified because the petitioners were specifically implicated by the prosecutrix and the complainant in the commission of the offences. The Court affirmed that where specific overt acts are attributed to accused persons, their cases are distinguishable from those of co-accused lacking such allegations. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no error of law or violation of justice principles in the High Court's discretionary order and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail to some co-accused while granting it to others constitutes an arbitrary exercise of discretion?
  • Does the presence of specific allegations of physical involvement in a crime justify distinguishing the cases of co-accused for the purpose of bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and 4 Others vs The State1979 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-08
  post-arrest bailmurderapprover statementplea of alibiSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners who are accused of murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether bail should be granted based on an alleged alibi and challenges to the credibility of an approver's statement at the bail stage. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, courts cannot embark upon a detailed inquiry into factual matters or deep appreciation of evidence, and since the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse, the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that deep-seated factual inquiries and assessment of the reliability of an approver's statement or pleas of alibi are matters to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, and should not be made the basis for granting bail when reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can embark upon a detailed inquiry into factual matters and the reliability of an approver's statement at the bail stage?
  • Does a plea of alibi supported by hospital records warrant the grant of post-arrest bail without recording evidence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail when such discretion has not been exercised arbitrarily or perversely?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali Malik vs Mst. Surrya Begum Etc.S1979 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-16
  leave to appealintra-court appealmaintainabilityallotment cancellationconstitution petitionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which accepted a constitution petition and declared the cancellation of residential plot allotments made to the respondents by the Provincial Government to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the petition before the Supreme Court under the Law Reforms Act, 1972, where an intra-court appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court was not availed of, and whether valuable property rights accrued from the administrative allotments. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was not competent as the petitioner failed to avail of the remedy of an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court in terms of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Act, 1972. The key principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court is not competent against an original order of a Single Judge of the High Court where an appeal to a Division Bench is provided by law and has not been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court competent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court when an intra-court appeal to a Division Bench was not availed of?
  • Whether the cancellation of residential plot allotments without notice or an opportunity of being heard is lawful?
  • Can a subsequent allottee challenge the restoration of plots to prior allottees when the initial allotment withdrawal was declared without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikramuddin Syed and Taj Muhammad Qureshi vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sind Etc.S Chief Secretary, Government of Sind Etcs1979 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Syed Walayat Ali Bokhary and Other1979 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24
  agreement of associationsettlement authoritiesinterpolationsjoint transferwrit jurisdictionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition regarding the residential portion of a property in Lyallpur jointly transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The parties executed an agreement of association, but a dispute arose concerning alleged unauthorized interpolations and insertions in the document relating to share division and payment conditions. The core legal question involved whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the concurrent factual findings and interpretations of the settlement authorities regarding the genuine form and effect of the agreement of association. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation placed by the High Court on the revisional order was tenable, as the Settlement Commissioner based his findings on the agreement in its original form without unauthorized additions, rendering his order just and fair and immune from interference in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent factual findings and evaluations of documents by administrative tribunals unless tainted by illegality or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities regarding interpolations in an agreement of association?
  • Can settlement authorities examine the original form of an agreement of association to determine the rights of parties in a joint property transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs Aurangzeb and Another1979 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19
  giftmushaadelivery of possessionminor doneesnatural guardianJamabandilimitationdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a declaratory suit challenging a gift of agricultural land made by a grandfather to his minor grandsons via a sanctioned mutation. The petitioner contended that the gift of an undivided share (mushaa) was invalid due to lack of delivery of possession, as someone else should have accepted possession on behalf of the minor donees. The core legal questions were whether formal delivery of possession to an independent party was necessary when the donor himself was the natural guardian of the minor donees, and whether the declaratory suit filed fourteen years after the mutation was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that where a donor acts as the natural guardian raising minor donees, his declaration and appearance before revenue authorities to sanction the mutation effectively transfer possession. Statutory entries in Jamabandis carry a presumption of truth which outweighs contradictory oral evidence. Consequently, the gift was valid, and the suit was barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is physical delivery of possession to a third party required to complete a gift to minor donees when the donor is their natural guardian?
  • Does an entry in revenue Jamabandis carry a statutory presumption of truth regarding possession over oral testimony?
  • What limitation period applies under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 to a suit for declaration challenging a gift mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State1979 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-05
  murdercapital punishmentsole eye-witnesssentence reductiongrave and sudden provocationappellate decisioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and a sentence of death for the murder of Mst. Walian. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a conviction on a capital charge could be sustained on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, and in light of contentions regarding delayed first information report recording and disbelieved recoveries. The Supreme Court found the testimony of the sole eye-witness and corroborating witnesses to be authentic, convincing, and unblemished, thereby establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case—specifically that the deceased and a prosecution witness were living in open adultery, causing grave frustration and anger to the appellant who had visited to persuade them to discontinue their association—the court held that the death penalty was not the proper sentence. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence of death to transportation for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
  • Does the disbelieving of recovery evidence and delays in recording the first information report vitiate an otherwise proved prosecution case?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances arising from social context and frustration justify the reduction of a death sentence to transportation for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and 3 Others vs The State1979 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  post-arrest bailmurdervicarious liabilityfurther inquirystatutory concessionpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were jointly accused of murder and other offences under Sections 302, 324, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that they were empty-handed and did not cause the fatal injuries, which were attributed to co-accused armed with knives. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioners allegedly clasped the eye-witnesses to facilitate the knife attacks, making it impossible to rule out their participation at this stage. The Court rejected the plea for bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on age, as the supporting birth register entry was doubtful and there was no evidence of sickness or infirmity. Furthermore, the Court held that a subsequent police investigation finding the petitioners guilty after an initial finding of innocence does not constitute 'two versions' of the prosecution to warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of advanced age without proof of sickness or infirmity?
  • Does a subsequent police investigation reversing an initial finding of innocence create 'two versions' of the prosecution so as to make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can empty-handed accused who allegedly facilitated the principal accused by holding the victims be denied bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakam Din vs Muhammad Irshad1979 PLD Supreme Court 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-16
  eviction proceedingslandlord-tenant relationshiptitle disputeregistration of documentslocus standirent restrictionacknowledgement of title
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, on grounds of personal need, rent default, and unauthorized sub-letting. The tenant challenged the landlord's title, contending that the property transfer via an unregistered partnership deed was legally ineffective under the Registration Act 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The core legal question was whether a tenant could dispute the landlord's ownership when the original landlord had acknowledged the respondent's title and relinquished interest. The Supreme Court held that the partnership deed constituted an acknowledgement of pre-existing title rather than a transfer requiring registration. The Court ruled that where the original landlord acknowledges the new landlord's title and severs connection with the property, the tenant lacks the locus standi to challenge the internal arrangements or the validity of the title transfer between the parties. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld, establishing that a tenant cannot go behind the established title of a landlord who has been recognized by the previous owner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the title of a landlord when the original landlord has acknowledged the new landlord's title and relinquished interest?
  • Does an acknowledgement of a pre-existing title in a partnership deed require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Is a tenant entitled to question the inter se relations regarding property ownership between a previous landlord and the current landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajl Said Khan vs Aya Khan and Another1979 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-15
  special leave to appealpre-emptionco-shareradditional evidencedeposit of pre-emption moneyregular first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Peshawar High Court in a Regular First Appeal, wherein the High Court allowed the production of additional evidence at the instance of the plaintiff-pre-emptor. The core legal question concerns the propriety of allowing additional evidence during the pendency of a first appeal in a pre-emption suit where the plaintiffs claimed superior rights as co-sharers based on previous sales and inheritance entries in the revenue record. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of the case, including the concurrent findings of the trial court regarding the co-sharership and the contention that the respondents failed to deposit the pre-emption money within the stipulated time after the suspension order expired. Ultimately, the petition challenges the interim exercise of discretion by the High Court in admitting additional evidence and the alleged failure to comply with the deposit decree. The key principle revolves around the appellate court's power to allow additional evidence and the strict legal consequences of failing to deposit pre-emption money as ordered by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow additional evidence to be produced during the pendency of a Regular First Appeal in a pre-emption suit?
  • What are the consequences of failing to deposit the pre-emption money within the time specified after the expiry of a suspension order?
  • Does the entry of a sole owner in the column of ownership in revenue records destroy the claim of a pre-emptor asserting co-sharership on the basis of a prior sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Bahadur vs Syed Razik Hussain1979 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-20
  ejectmentpersonal use and occupationbona fide requirementlandlord and tenantconcurrent findingsspecial leave petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave arises from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court of Baluchistan ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from a residential house in Quetta. The respondent landlord sought ejectment on the ground that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required for his personal use and occupation, as his existing accommodation consisting of two rooms was inadequate for his family of eight members, whereas the petitioner occupied a larger five-room house. The petitioner contested the application, alleging mala fides, previous withdrawn ejectment proceedings on different grounds, and availability of other properties. The Rent Controller and appellate courts evaluated the evidence and concurred that the landlord's personal need was genuine and bona fide. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement, based on proper appreciation of evidence, do not warrant interference in special leave. The key principle established is that concurrent factual determinations on the adequacy of residential accommodation and the bona fides of a landlord's personal need are final unless shown to be perverse or suffering from a legal flaw.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent factual findings regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for a residential house can be interfered with in special leave?
  • Does the withdrawal of a prior ejectment application on different grounds bar a landlord from filing a subsequent ejectment application on the ground of personal need?
  • Whether inadequacy of existing residential accommodation for a landlord's family constitutes a valid ground for ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Said Ahmad Etc. vs Mst. Rasulan Bibi Etc.S1979 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-23
  inheritancemutationfinding of factsecond appeallocus standiwritten statementwidow's share
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a regular second appeal regarding the validity of a land mutation. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court correctly upheld a mutation in favor of a second wife, and whether the absence of a specific plea regarding the second marriage in the written statement vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the widow's status was a finding of fact, which was conclusive and not subject to interference. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the trial was not vitiated by the lack of a specific plea, as the plaintiffs had notice of the evidence and cross-examined witnesses without seeking to lead rebuttal evidence. Finally, the Court affirmed that the petitioners, as transferees from heirs, lacked the locus standi to challenge a long-standing mutation where the original heirs had never objected. The principle established is that findings of fact by appellate courts are conclusive, and procedural defects in pleadings do not vitiate a trial where the opposing party had full opportunity to contest the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a finding of fact regarding the existence of a widow, upheld by the lower appellate court, conclusive in a regular second appeal?
  • Does the failure to specifically plead a second marriage in a written statement vitiate the trial when the opposing party cross-examined witnesses on the issue?
  • Do transferees from heirs have the locus standi to challenge a long-standing mutation of inheritance where the original heirs raised no objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Aftab vs The State1979 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-09
  bail after convictionsuspension of sentencesick and infirm personquantum of sicknessappellate bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellant's application for suspension of sentence and release on bail under section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, convicted of murder following a sudden fight and sentenced to imprisonment for life, sought bail on grounds of old age (over 70 years) and sickness, supported by a competent Medical Board's report diagnosing duodenal ulcer and chronic trachoma. The High Court had dismissed the application, holding that the onus to establish sickness or infirmity for a convicted person is heavier than for an under-trial person. The core legal question was whether the standard of sickness or infirmity required to grant bail to a convicted person under section 426(1) is higher than that for an under-trial person under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once a person is found to be sick and infirm, the court cannot arbitrarily quantify or impose a heavier burden of sickness for a convict compared to an under-trial person, and suspended the appellant's sentence, granting him bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the onus to establish sickness or infirmity for the grant of bail is heavier in the case of a convicted person than in the case of an under-trial person?
  • Can an appellate court refuse bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by quantifying the degree of sickness of a convicted person?
  • Does a medical board report diagnosing duodenal ulcer and chronic trachoma satisfy the criteria for a sick and infirm person under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Hakim Khan and Another vs Government of N. W. F. P. through the Secretary to Government Home and Tribal Affairs, Peshawar and 3 Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21
  blood feuddushmanFrontier Crimes Regulationtribal areassecurity bondrepeal of enactmentcustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning a long-standing blood feud. The petitioners sought to enforce a 1949 order by a Political Agent declaring the respondent a 'dushman' (enemy) and prohibiting his entry into their village, following his conviction for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, and the enactment of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975, invalidated the previous order, and whether the respondent’s return to the village violated the petitioners' rights under the prevailing customary law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the public importance of the issues and the existence of conflicting High Court precedents. Pending final adjudication, the Court maintained the Lawyer Magistrate's order requiring security bonds but modified it to explicitly prohibit the respondent from entering the village, emphasizing that this interim measure did not constitute a license for violence. The Court identified the need to reconcile customary blood-feud practices with modern constitutional guarantees and statutory criminal procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, invalidate previous orders declaring a person a 'dushman' under customary law?
  • Can a Political Agent's order prohibiting a person from entering a village be enforced after the enactment of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975?
  • Does the delegation of power under Article 139 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 authorize the Deputy Secretary to hear revision applications against orders of Divisional Commissioners?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Elahi vs Miss Farah Naz and Another1979 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25
  post-arrest baildiscretionary powermurderstatutory provisobail for womencriminal procedureappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order granting bail to a female respondent accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which allows for the release on bail of women, minors, or sick persons, even in capital cases. The petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the crime, involving a firearm, precluded the grant of bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s discretion was not exercised perversely or illegally. The Court affirmed that while the proviso confers discretion rather than an absolute right, the policy of the law favors granting bail to such categories of persons unless specific circumstances disentitle them. The Court clarified that the mere heinousness of an offense does not automatically negate the statutory discretion provided for women and minors. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order, emphasizing that appellate courts should not disturb such discretion absent clear legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, grant an absolute right to bail for women and minors in capital cases?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a High Court in granting bail under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, absent a showing of perversity or illegality?
  • Does the heinous nature of a crime, such as murder committed with a firearm, automatically disqualify a woman or minor from being granted bail under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Amir Ali vs The State1979 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-15
  post-arrest bailtentative assessment of evidencemisreading of evidenceattempt to murderalibidiscretionary ordersprejudice to trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for bail in a case involving an alleged attempt to murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail by misreading evidence and failing to conduct a proper tentative assessment of the prosecution and defense materials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by misinterpreting the medical evidence regarding the complainant's injuries and by misapplying the legal standard for bail. The Court emphasized that in bail applications, the judiciary must perform only a tentative appreciation of evidence rather than reaching conclusive findings that might prejudice the trial. The key principle laid down is that while courts are reluctant to interfere with discretionary bail orders, they must intervene when the lower court ignores material evidence, misreads the record, or expresses findings in a manner that prejudices the parties' cases in the subsequent trial.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court in a bail application reach conclusive findings on evidence that might prejudice the trial?
  • Is a court required to conduct a tentative appreciation of evidence when deciding a bail application?
  • Can a bail order be set aside if the court misreads the medical evidence regarding the complainant's injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Shah vs Syed Muhammad Azim and Other1979 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-07
  acquittal appealself-defenceinterested witnesshostile witnessburden of proofleave to appealcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an acquittal appeal by the High Court in a case involving charges under Section 304/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents, based on the rejection of interested eye-witness testimony and the acceptance of a defence version supported by an independent witness, was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal was justified, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the complainant party's eye-witnesses were unreliable, particularly as they denied the injuries sustained by the accused, whereas the defence version—supported by an independent witness—established that the complainant party were the aggressors. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution fails to establish its motive, its eye-witnesses are interested and contradicted by medical evidence, and a credible independent witness supports the defence's plea of self-defence, an acquittal is proper and warrants no interference in appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal be overturned when the prosecution fails to prove its motive and the eye-witnesses are found to be interested and unreliable?
  • Is the plea of self-defence sufficiently established when the prosecution's own evidence shows the complainant party initiated the attack?
  • Does the fact that a witness is declared hostile automatically render their entire testimony inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Are injuries sustained by the accused relevant factors in determining the aggressor in a criminal altercation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Imam Bakhsh vs Muhammad Bakhsh Etc.S1979 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-05
  bail cancellationcommon intentionvicarious liabilitymedical evidencemurderattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to four respondents in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The deceased had been subjected to a beating by the respondents, resulting in multiple injuries, subsequent hospitalization, a splenectomy, and eventual death. The High Court had granted bail, reasoning that the medical evidence was inconsistent and that the fatal injury could not be specifically attributed to any individual respondent. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the High Court had misread the medical reports and failed to properly consider the prosecution's case regarding common intention and vicarious liability. The Supreme Court held that the death appeared to be a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted by the respondents, and the High Court's assessment of the evidence was flawed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants for their arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to grant bail when the medical evidence regarding the cause of death is contested?
  • Is a court justified in granting bail by disregarding the prosecution's case regarding common intention and vicarious liability?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the appellate court finds that the lower court misread the medical evidence and ignored salient facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs Government of Pakistan And Other1979 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24
  medical college admissionreserved seatsdomicile certificatequotawrit petitiondelay in submission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over admission to a medical college against seats reserved for students domiciled in the Orakzai Agency. The fourth respondent, who secured higher marks than the petitioner, initially submitted a domicile certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Kohat because the Orakzai Agency had not yet been created at the time of its issuance. Upon learning that a certificate from the Political Agent of the newly created Orakzai Agency was required, he obtained and submitted the correct certificate after the interview date but a month before the final admission list was announced. The authorities rejected his application, but the High Court allowed his writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that in the absence of any mandatory statutory provision to the contrary, the late submission of a corrected domicile certificate does not debar an otherwise qualified candidate, provided the certificate is produced before the final admission list is announced. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late submission of a corrected domicile certificate debar a candidate from admission if it is submitted before the final results are announced?
  • Whether a domicile certificate issued by a previous administrative authority remains valid or must be replaced upon the creation of a new administrative agency?
  • Can a candidate with higher merit be denied admission solely due to a procedural delay in submitting a corrected domicile certificate in the absence of mandatory prohibitory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Director, of Health Services, N. W. F. P. and Othierss1979 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11
  service tribunaldismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryremandreinstatementback benefitsefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Service Tribunal accepted the petitioner's appeal on the technical ground that the inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory rules, set aside the dismissal order, and directed a fresh inquiry while declining to order immediate reinstatement or back benefits pending the outcome. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal while ordering a fresh inquiry and withholding reinstatement and emoluments. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order did not amount to an improper remand, as the Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits and rightly left the matter of reinstatement and back benefits to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed with clarifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct a fresh inquiry upon setting aside a departmental dismissal order on technical grounds?
  • Does the setting aside of a dismissal order by the Service Tribunal automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement and back benefits?
  • Whether an order by the Service Tribunal declining immediate reinstatement pending a fresh inquiry constitutes an unlawful remand under the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-18
  post-arrest bailmurder caseexpeditious trialdelay in trialleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to two petitioners accused of murder. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial process, noting that the case had been transferred back to the Sessions Judge after the Additional Sessions Judge declined to proceed. The High Court had previously directed the Sessions Judge to conclude the trial within two to three months, prioritizing it over other matters. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the case and the alleged delay justified the grant of bail despite the High Court's explicit directive for an expeditious trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' claim of delay was premature as the time frame fixed by the High Court for the trial's completion had not yet expired. The Court affirmed that where a higher court has issued clear directions for an expeditious trial, the accused cannot seek bail on grounds of delay before that specified period has elapsed without progress.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of delay when a higher court has already issued specific directions for an expeditious trial?
  • Is a petition for bail premature if the time frame set by the High Court for the conclusion of a trial has not yet expired?
  • Does the transfer of a case from an Additional Sessions Judge back to a Sessions Judge constitute an inordinate delay justifying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibul Wahab El Kheiri vs Ch. Saeed Ahmad1979 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-07
  defamationcriminal complaintjurisdiction of magistratepublic servantquashment of proceedingsCourt of Sessionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a quashment application regarding criminal defamation proceedings. The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 198-A into the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 divested Magistrates of jurisdiction to try private complaints of defamation filed by public servants, mandating that such cases be tried exclusively by a Court of Session upon a complaint by a Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court held that Section 198-A does not exclude the jurisdiction of Magistrates over private complaints. The Court clarified that Section 198-A creates an additional mechanism for the Government to initiate prosecution via a Public Prosecutor in the Court of Session, but it does not derogate from the right of an aggrieved person to file a private complaint under Section 198. The principle established is that Section 198-A is supplementary to, not a replacement for, Section 198, and the 'notwithstanding' clause in Section 198-A was intended to bypass former commitment proceedings, not to alter the forum for private complaints.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 198-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclude the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to try a private complaint of defamation filed by a public servant?
  • Is the procedure under Section 198-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclusive for cases involving the defamation of public servants?
  • Does the right of an aggrieved person to file a private complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain intact despite the enactment of Section 198-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs The Official Liquidator, Hospital Equip Ment Supply1979 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-15
  official liquidatorbank guaranteeremunerationcourt supervisionspecial leave to appealliquidation proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by Habib Bank Limited against an order of a learned Single Judge, which had dismissed the Bank's application requiring the Official Liquidator to furnish a bank guarantee regarding his remuneration. The core legal question was whether an Official Liquidator is legally required to furnish a bank guarantee for remuneration while performing duties under the supervision of the Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition. The Court affirmed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, establishing the principle that an Official Liquidator remains under the direct control, direction, and supervision of the Court until the discharge of their duties. Consequently, the Court found no legal necessity for the Official Liquidator to furnish a bank guarantee for remuneration, as the Court's oversight provides sufficient accountability. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Official Liquidator required to furnish a bank guarantee for their remuneration while performing duties under the supervision of the Court?
  • Does the Court retain control, direction, and supervision over an Official Liquidator until the discharge of their duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Alias Mullah and 10 Others vs Settlement & Rehabilitation1979 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-03
  land allotmentdisplaced personssettlement and rehabilitationconcurrent findings of factconstitutional jurisdictionfraudulent allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding a land allotment dispute between displaced persons. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in upholding concurrent findings by settlement authorities that the land in dispute had been validly allotted to the respondent prior to the petitioners' claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the departmental authorities and the High Court correctly determined that the land was already transferred to the respondent on an earlier date, rendering the subsequent allotment to the petitioners' predecessor invalid due to the unavailability of the land. The Court found no question of law or constitutional error in the impugned judgment. The principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact are established regarding the validity of land allotments and the authenticity of underlying documents, and no constitutional error is demonstrated, the Supreme Court will not interfere with such findings in its appellate jurisdiction, particularly when the property was not available for transfer at the time of the subsequent claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities and the High Court?
  • Is an allotment of land valid if the property was already transferred to another party on an earlier date?
  • Does the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court require the presence of a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zarin vs Faizullah Etc.S1979 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-10
  Dastur-ul-Amal of Dirinheritance disputefictitious sale deedconcurrent findings of factappellate practicenew plea on appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the estate of a deceased person, Bawar Khan, in the Dir region. The petitioner claimed ownership of land based on an alleged sale deed, while the respondents, the deceased's brothers, asserted their right to inherit the property. The matter underwent multiple rounds of adjudication by local Qazis and administrative authorities, with conflicting findings regarding the validity of the sale deed. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner, upheld by the Additional Commissioner, the Provincial Government, and the Peshawar High Court, determined that the sale deed was a fictitious and concocted document and ordered the distribution of the property among the legal heirs. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the case should have been adjudicated under Chapter IV of the Dastur-ul-Amal of Dir State, which governs immovable property disputes, rather than inheritance laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to raise this specific legal contention in the lower courts, precluding its consideration at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact that the sale deed was fraudulent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not pleaded or argued in the courts below?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the authenticity of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind Province of Sind vs Mst. Hasina Aftab Ali and 21979 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan vs Messrs Indo Pakistan Corporation Ltd. Etc_1979 PLD Supreme Court 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-21
  enemy firmenemy propertydeceased shareholdercompany registerdeeming clauseDefence of Pakistan Rulesshares transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment declaring that the first respondent company was not an enemy firm under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971. The core legal questions involved whether deceased shareholders who were Indian nationals continued to be members of the company for the purpose of enemy property determination despite their deaths, and whether the company's articles of association validly created a legal fiction deeming them to remain holders of shares until transfer. The Supreme Court held that under the company's articles and established company law principles, a deceased shareholder's estate remains a member and the deceased is deemed to remain the holder of shares until transmission or transfer is completed, rendering the company an enemy firm due to shares held by enemy subjects. The Court laid down the principle that the legal fiction contained in company articles regarding deceased members remaining holders of shares is valid and operative for determining enemy firm status under emergency legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a shareholder automatically terminate membership in a company for the purpose of determining if it is an enemy firm?
  • Are the legal heirs of a deceased shareholder considered members of a company prior to complying with procedural requirements for registering the transfer of shares under the articles of association?
  • Whether the legal fiction in a company's articles providing that a deceased member remains the holder of shares until registration of a transfer is valid?
  • Does the failure to afford a hearing prior to issuing an enemy property notification vitiate the proceedings if a full hearing is subsequently provided before a Special Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-06
  review petitioncriminal petitioncorroborationappraisal of evidencesupreme court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal petition for special leave to appeal, contending that the majority opinion failed to properly evaluate the quality of corroborative evidence and that the injuries sustained by the victims did not support the firing of more than three shots. The core legal question was whether the appraisal of evidence regarding corroboration can be undertaken within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of corroboration is inextricably linked with the appraisal of evidence, which falls outside the permissible realm of review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that attempting to reopen findings of fact affirmed by both the trial court and the High Court is impermissible in review, and consequently dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quality of corroboration and appraisal of evidence can be examined in review jurisdiction?
  • Can a petition for review be used as an appeal to re-examine factual findings and evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul Ghulam Qadir vs The State the State (a) Penal Code (XLV1979 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 3 Others vs The State1979 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-24
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirypolice investigationsupreme court of pakistanleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioners in a case involving murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail under the category of further inquiry because a number of co-accused mentioned in the first information report were found innocent by the police during investigation. The Supreme Court held that where the petitioners are specifically named in the first information report with active roles and specific weapons attributed to them, their case does not fall within the ambit of further inquiry merely due to exoneration of certain co-accused by the police. The court established that police findings of innocence regarding some accused do not automatically render the case of specifically implicated co-accused one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the refusal of bail by the High Court without arbitrariness or perversity warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exoneration of some co-accused by the police during investigation automatically make the case of remaining accused one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are accused persons specifically named in the first information report with assigned roles and weapons entitled to bail when the police find certain other co-accused innocent?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court refusing bail in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State1979 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-01
  post-arrest bailunexplained injuriesfree fightstatutory delayold age bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under sections 148, 302, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The incident resulted in one death and injuries to multiple persons on both sides. The High Court had earlier granted bail to two co-accused on the ground that the complainant side's aggression and lack of explanation for numerous injuries on the accused side warranted further inquiry, but denied bail to the petitioner because he was attributed two hatchet blows falling under section 307. A subsequent bail petition on the additional grounds of old age and illness was also dismissed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the circumstances, noting the unexplained injuries on the accused side and the prolonged incarceration exceeding two years. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail and accordingly accepted the appeal, laying down the principle that unexplained injuries on the accused party coupled with the statutory considerations regarding prolonged detention and medical condition justify the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when multiple injuries sustained by the accused party remain unexplained in the first information report?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without a likelihood of an early trial constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether age and ailments such as cataract and rheumatic pains warrant the concession of bail under the statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs Ahmad Khan and Another1979 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs The State1979 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-21
  mercy petitiondeath sentencepower of Presidentconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the wife of a death-row convict. The core legal question was whether the rejection of the convict's mercy petition by the President of Pakistan was invalid due to the absence of a Prime Minister on whose advice it should have been processed. The Supreme Court held that the President's power of mercy under Article 45 of the Constitution is validly exercisable by the President, repelling the contention that the absence of a Prime Minister vitiated the order, following the precedent in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rejection of a mercy petition by the President of Pakistan is invalid in the absence of a Prime Minister?
  • Does the President possess the power of mercy under Article 45 of the Constitution independently?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Muhammad Hanif and Other1979 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-14
  rent restrictionreconstruction of premisestenant's right to possessionstatutory interpretationleave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a leave petition challenging a High Court judgment concerning a tenant's right to re-entry following the reconstruction of a building. The core legal question was whether the requirements of Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were satisfied, specifically regarding the timing of the tenant's application for possession of the newly constructed premises. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct in law. The Court affirmed that the tenant had timely approached the landlord for possession before the completion and occupation of the new building, thereby fulfilling the statutory conditions. Furthermore, the Court rejected the landlord's contention that the resulting partition of the shop rendered the remaining area commercially unviable, characterizing this as a moral rather than a legal argument. The key principle laid down is that a tenant’s right to re-entry under the Ordinance is contingent upon applying before the new building’s completion and occupation, and the Rent Controller is empowered to determine just allocation based on the tenant's needs and the new building's type.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant have a right to be put into possession of a new shop constructed on the site of the old premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • What are the conditions precedent for a tenant to apply for possession of a new building under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a landlord's claim regarding the commercial unsuitability of the remaining area after partition a valid legal ground to deny a tenant's right to possession under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Muhammad vs The State and Another1979 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-25
  quashment of proceedingsmutation proceedingsRevenue Courtcognizance of offenceforgerycriminal procedureinheritance fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed his petition for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under sections 468 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved fraud and forgery in mutation proceedings regarding inheritance, where the petitioner allegedly identified a woman falsely posing as the complainant's mother to deprive the complainant of her inheritance. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 468, arguing that the alleged offence occurred before a Revenue Court, thereby necessitating a complaint by the Presiding Officer under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that a Revenue Officer conducting mutation proceedings does not function as a Revenue Court. Consequently, the provisions of section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not attracted. The Court affirmed that the Magistrate could take cognizance based on the police report, and dismissed the petition, establishing that mutation proceedings do not constitute judicial proceedings before a Court for the purposes of section 195(1)(c).

  Questions settled

  • Does a Revenue Officer conducting mutation proceedings function as a Revenue Court?
  • Is a complaint by a Presiding Officer required under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for offences committed during mutation proceedings?
  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the Revenue Officer where the document was produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Muhammad Alias Ghausa and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-29
  blood feudpartisan witnessbenefit of doubtabscondencecorroborationmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of a partisan eye-witness, in the absence of other credible evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case involving a blood feud. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide reliable, independent corroboration. The Court observed that one eye-witness was unreliable, and the other, while likely present, was a partisan witness whose testimony required independent corroboration to implicate the accused. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellants' abscondence could not serve as corroborative evidence because it was equally attributable to a prior pending criminal case. Additionally, the Court held that the FIR, lodged by a deceased person, could not corroborate the testimony of other witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases involving blood feuds, partisan testimony must be subjected to strict scrutiny and requires independent corroboration to secure a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a partisan witness be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused constitute corroborative evidence if it is equally attributable to a separate pending criminal case?
  • Can an FIR lodged by a deceased person be used to corroborate the testimony of other prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the existence of a motive provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction based on partisan testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• G. M. D. Ghauri vs Ch. Zaheer Ud Din and Anoters1979 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04
  pre-arrest bailreview petitionerror apparent on the face of the recordcriminal reviewbail eligibilitySupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for review filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenging the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent by the Lahore High Court. The respondent faced charges under sections 420, 468, 472, 419, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondent was ineligible for bail due to the nature of the offence under section 472, which carries a potential sentence of ten years imprisonment, arguing that the grant of bail violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1956, a review petition in criminal proceedings is maintainable only upon demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record. Finding no such error and noting that the court had previously considered the nature of the alleged offences when denying leave to appeal, the Court dismissed the review petition as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Under what grounds is a review petition maintainable in criminal cases before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does the mere severity of an offence, such as one punishable by ten years imprisonment, automatically preclude the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khitab vs Mst. Naheed Akhtar and Another1979 PLD Supreme Court 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24
  dissolution of marriagehabitual crueltynon-maintenanceterritorial jurisdictionfamily courtMuslim personal lawspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree for the dissolution of a Muslim marriage. The petitioner-husband challenged the decree on two primary grounds: first, the applicability of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 to the region where the marriage was solemnized; and second, the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mansehra, where the wife resided, rather than the place where the marriage occurred. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the strict applicability of the 1939 Act, Islamic Law governs the marriage, and courts, acting as Qazis, possess the authority to dissolve marriages on grounds such as habitual cruelty and non-maintenance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a wife may institute a suit for dissolution of marriage in the district of her residence if she was unjustifiably deserted, as the failure to maintain her constitutes a cause of action arising at her place of residence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings of fact regarding the husband's cruelty and desertion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 apply to marriages solemnized in regions where the Act's strict applicability is contested?
  • Can a wife institute a suit for dissolution of marriage in the district of her residence if she was unjustifiably deserted by her husband elsewhere?
  • Are courts in Pakistan competent to effect a divorce on grounds valid under Islamic Law even if the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 is not strictly applicable?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain and 3 Others vs Mst. Begum Bibi and Another1979 SCMR 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21
  civil suitrecovery of movablesdecretal amountsecond appealdismissal in limineconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Begum Bibi filed a civil suit against the petitioners seeking the recovery of specific movable items, including ornaments, household goods, and furniture, or alternatively, the recovery of Rs. 14,630 as their monetary value. The petitioners contested the claim in their written statements. Following a trial, the trial court decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 14,500. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, upheld the decree but modified the decretal amount, reducing it by Rs. 2,000. The petitioners subsequently filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings and found no merit in the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings regarding the recovery of the decretal amount.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second appeal be dismissed in limine if the trial and appellate courts have concurrently found in favor of the plaintiff?
  • Is a decree for the recovery of movables or their alternative price legally sustainable if the defendant denies the claim in their written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Mianwali and Another1979 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-28
  death sentencewrit jurisdictionmercy petitionadministrative instructionspiecemeal litigationexecution delayconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a death row convict, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his writ petition. The petitioner argued that, based on specific 1943 government instructions, his execution should not be carried out due to the significant lapse of time since his arrest and his prolonged confinement in the condemned cell. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds that this argument could have been raised in previous litigation and that the petitioner was attempting to litigate his case piecemeal. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in raising the point earlier. Crucially, the Court ruled that the administrative instructions relied upon were merely directory guidelines for the executive branch regarding mercy petitions and did not create enforceable legal rights that could be adjudicated through the High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction. While dismissing the petition, the Court noted that it remained within the discretion of the executive authorities to consider the delay in execution when exercising their powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative instructions intended as guidelines for the executive branch be enforced through the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to raise new grounds in a subsequent writ petition that could have been raised with reasonable diligence in earlier proceedings?
  • Do administrative guidelines regarding the timing of executions create enforceable legal rights for a death row convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs Ch. Muhammad Arif Alias Saiful Malook1979 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-18
  review petitionspecial leave to appealconcurrent findings of factpower of attorneydeclaration of titlecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously refused to grant special leave to appeal in a civil suit regarding the ownership of a house. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property from the respondent through an attorney, Muhammad Ashraf, and sought a declaration of title. The trial court, the district court, and the Lahore High Court all concurrently held that the petitioner failed to prove that Muhammad Ashraf was a duly appointed attorney of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established the validity of the sale transaction through the alleged attorney. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were consistent and that the previous order refusing leave to appeal was not vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as no sufficient grounds were established to warrant a review of the prior order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be entertained when the prior order is not vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in a review proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Mohammad vs Akbar Etc.S1979 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailplea of self-defenceunexplained injuriesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which suspended the life imprisonment sentences of the respondents and granted them bail. The High Court had suspended the sentences primarily because the respondents' plea of self-defence required further examination, given a significant number of unexplained injuries sustained by the accused side. The petitioner contended that the plea of self-defence was untenable as blood-stained earth was recovered from the deceased's land, proving the respondents were the aggressors, and that the trial court's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was well-reasoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to conduct a detailed examination of the merits at this stage, holding that the High Court had not exercised its discretion improperly under the circumstances. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of unexplained injuries on the person of the accused can justify the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment pending appeal?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail and suspension of sentence by the High Court?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the High Court in suspending a sentence unless it is shown to be exercised improperly?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18
  bail cancellationfurther inquirymurdercriminal procedurerevisional jurisdictionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of the petitioners' bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with a discretionary bail order based on further inquiry without finding the lower court's order to be arbitrary, perverse, or fanciful, especially where eyewitnesses made statements under Section 164 disclaiming knowledge of the occurrence and the first informant had died. The ratio established is that an appellate or revisional court should not interfere with a well-reasoned bail order founded on the need for further inquiry unless it is shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with a discretionary bail order passed by a Sessions Court under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without holding it to be arbitrary or perverse?
  • Does an F.I.R. constitute substantive piece of evidence when its maker has died and is unavailable for cross-examination?
  • Is bail properly granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when prosecution witnesses resile through statements under Section 164?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool vs The State1979 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-27
  post-arrest baildelay in trialmurderabuse of processsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's pre-trial bail application in a double murder case registered under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the commencement of his trial, citing previous judgments of the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether delay in the trial constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses, and whether the Supreme Court has applied conflicting standards on this matter. The Supreme Court held that while ordinary delay is not a ground for bail, unconscionable and inordinate delay amounting to an abuse of the process of the court may justify granting bail. The ratio is that the facts of each case determine whether the delay is unconscionable; where custody has lasted since May 1976 and the trial is expected to commence within a year, the delay is not unconscionable, and the High Court's refusal of bail was proper. The key principle laid down is that uniform standards apply to bail on grounds of delay, warranting relief only in cases of abuse of process caused by inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person entitled to bail solely on the ground of delay in the commencement of a trial?
  • What constitutes unconscionable delay amounting to an abuse of the process of the court for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court has expressed conflicting views on the question of bail based on trial delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Property Trust Board vs Musawar Ali and Another1979 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21
  limitationcondonation of delayevacuee propertycompensation pooltime-barred petitionprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The Evacuee Property Trust Board sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that had dismissed its challenge to the transfer of property to private individuals. The property in question had been transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the Board claimed it was Trust property. The District Judge had previously determined the property was not Trust property, a finding upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petition was found to be barred by 33 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing procedural difficulties and the time required for government legal consultation. The Court rejected these grounds as irrelevant. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with a previous court order requiring the amended application for condonation to be filed within one month, filing it four days late without explanation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that procedural delays by government entities do not constitute valid grounds for condonation of limitation without satisfactory explanation.

  Questions settled

  • Are procedural difficulties and the time required for government legal consultation sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay in filing a petition?
  • Does the failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline for filing an amended application for condonation of delay warrant the dismissal of a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State And 2 Other1979 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19
  leave to appealtransfer of criminal caserecording of evidencewitness cross-examinationtrial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a leave to appeal petition directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of a murder trial. The petitioner, who lodged an F.I.R. regarding the murder of his brother, sought the transfer of the case and a stay of proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, alleging that a prosecution witness's testimony during cross-examination was inaccurately recorded by the trial judge. The High Court dismissed the transfer application, holding that the grievance regarding the recording of evidence could be addressed or clarified at the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view proper and reasonable, noting that it was open to the petitioner to move the trial court for clarification or re-examination of the witness after the conclusion of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order warranted no interference and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal case should be transferred from the trial court merely on the apprehension that a witness's statement was inaccurately recorded during cross-examination?
  • Can a grievance regarding the recording of a witness's testimony be addressed at the conclusion of the evidence before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsanul Haque vs Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Etc.S1979 SCMR 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-17
  service appealdepartmental remedyexhaustion of remediesabatement of suitsservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Upper Division Clerk, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been removed from service in 1970 but failed to file a departmental appeal against that order, opting instead to file a civil suit which was dismissed in 1973. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed as time-barred under Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, with the Tribunal erroneously assuming the suit abated after the Act's commencement. The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's reliance on Section 6 regarding abatement factually incorrect, as the suit had been dismissed prior to the Act's enforcement. However, the Court held that the appeal remained incompetent because the petitioner failed to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal remedy required by the proviso to Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court affirmed that an appeal to the Service Tribunal is not maintainable unless the aggrieved civil servant has first exhausted all available departmental remedies, rendering the petition for leave to appeal meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
  • Does Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to suits dismissed prior to the commencement of the Act?
  • Is an appeal to a Service Tribunal maintainable if the aggrieved civil servant has not first pursued available departmental appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Elahi and Others vs The State1979 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-10
  review petitionerror patent on the face of the recordappreciation of evidencereasonable doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioners against the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment dated 31st May 1977, which had dismissed their Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1976. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to a review of the previous judgment based on alleged errors patent on the face of the record regarding the appreciation of evidence. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the majority opinion failed to consider alternative hypotheses beneficial to the accused and that the conviction of one petitioner, Nur Hussain, lacked sufficient corroboration after other evidence was rejected. The Court held that the arguments presented did not constitute an error patent on the face of the record, as they merely sought a re-evaluation of the material already considered. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the merits of a case or challenge the factual conclusions reached by the original bench. Consequently, the Court found the contentions devoid of substance and dismissed the petition, maintaining the original conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be used to re-argue the merits of a case already decided by the Supreme Court?
  • What constitutes an error patent on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of a criminal judgment?
  • Is the existence of a dissenting opinion in a judgment sufficient grounds to grant a review petition based on reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Eastern Company (Private) Ltd. and 2 Others vs Mst. Gul Begum and 0Therss1979 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24
  winding uplocus standipreliminary objectionprivate limited companyshareholderscontributoriescreditorsspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying matter involved a petition for the winding up of a private limited company under Section 162 of the Companies Act, filed by the respondents. The petitioners had raised a preliminary objection challenging the respondents' locus standi to initiate winding-up proceedings. The High Court dismissed this objection, finding that the respondents' claims as shareholders, contributories, and creditors were sufficient to maintain the petition at that preliminary stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision, noting that the question of whether the respondents actually qualified as creditors or contributories required a full trial and the recording of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a petition for winding up cannot be summarily dismissed at the preliminary stage based on disputed facts regarding the petitioner's standing, as such issues are matters for trial. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for the winding up of a company be dismissed at a preliminary stage based on disputed facts regarding the petitioner's standing?
  • Is the status of a petitioner as a creditor or contributory in a winding-up proceeding a question that requires trial and evidence?
  • Does a court have the authority to dismiss a winding-up petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a preliminary objection regarding locus standi?
  Read full judgment →
• E. A. Evans vs Muhammad Ashraf1979 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Muhammad Ramzan Etc.S1979 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-26
  review petitionlimitationcondonation of delaysettlement operationswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arises from a dispute over a house in Khushab, District Sargodha, subjected to settlement operations. The petitioner's claim was initially rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in November 1959, while the respondent obtained transfer documents in 1960 and 1962. Nearly fourteen years later, in 1973, the petitioner filed a belated revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which was allowed without addressing the massive delay. The Lahore High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order via a writ petition, and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the permissibility of condoning an unexplained, inordinate delay of fourteen years in filing a revision petition under settlement laws and the standard for review. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner erred in law by condoning a patently time-barred revision without sufficient cause, and since the review petition merely re-argued the merits without establishing any legal ground for review, it was dismissed as frivolous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revision petition be maintained after an inordinate and unexplained delay of fourteen years?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in review proceedings where the applicant merely re-argues the merits of the case?
  • Is a settlement commissioner justified in allowing a time-barred revision without recording a finding on sufficient cause for delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Mohammad Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Abdul Ghani and Atherss1979 SCMR 304, 1979 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-09-16
  workman definitionwrongful dismissallabour court jurisdictionreinstatementtermination of servicewrit jurisdictionfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that upheld a Labour Court decision regarding the termination of the respondent's employment. The respondent, a Chief Accountant, had his services terminated for unsatisfactory performance, which he successfully challenged before the Labour Court as an unlawful dismissal rather than a simple termination. The core legal questions were whether the respondent qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws and whether his removal constituted a dismissal requiring adherence to statutory procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the respondent lacked supervisory functions at the time of termination, thereby qualifying as a workman. Furthermore, the Court held that the termination was substantively a dismissal based on performance, which fell within the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate. The Court affirmed that, unlike common law contracts of service where specific performance is restricted, the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 empowers Labour Courts to order reinstatement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of an employee under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction if the decision is based on irrelevant facts or lacks evidence?
  • Does an employee who lacks supervisory functions qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Mohammad Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Abdul Ghani and Another1979 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  workmantermination of servicedismissalreinstatementlabour court jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision of the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi. The Labour Court had held that the termination of the respondent-employee's services by the petitioner-company was in effect an order of dismissal rather than simple termination, and that the respondent fell within the definition of a workman under the applicable labour laws. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent qualified as a workman and whether his termination constituted a dismissal, as well as whether the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction to order reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals and the High Court classifying the respondent as a workman and the action as a dismissal were based on evidence and free from legal error. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the relevant labour legislation empowers the Labour Court to direct reinstatement, distinguishing the case from general principles governing contracts of service under the Specific Relief Act. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding the designation of Chief Accountant can be considered a workman under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does an order terminating service due to unsatisfactory work amount to an order of dismissal?
  • Can a Labour Court order the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can a new legal argument not raised before the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and Another vs Member Board of Revenue Etc.S1979 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21
  bailcriminal law special provisionsspecial leave to appealcancellation of bailconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing a constitutional petition concerning the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the validity of successive orders passed by revenue and administrative authorities regarding bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since challan had been submitted and the Deputy Commissioner had taken cognizance of the case, the petitioners were at liberty to apply afresh for bail before the competent authority or the President of the Tribunal under section 17 of the Ordinance. The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition, establishing that accused persons should seek fresh recourse for bail before the trial forum when challan has been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person apply afresh for bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 after challan has been submitted and cognizance taken?
  • Whether the Board of Revenue has revisional jurisdiction under section 24 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968?
  • Is an appellate order passed under section 23 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 sustainable if passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Custodian of Enemy Property vs Hoshang M. Dastur and Other1979 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-22
  condonation of delaylimitation periodsufficient causespecific performancegovernment litigationdue diligencespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the specific performance of a lease agreement. The core legal question is whether the significant delay in filing the petition, which was barred by 272 days, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation under the Supreme Court Rules, 1956. The petitioner, the Custodian of Enemy Property, attributed the delay to internal administrative deliberations and attempts to secure legal counsel. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence, noting that the delay arose from routine bureaucratic indecision rather than unavoidable circumstances. The Court reaffirmed that the government, as a litigant, is not entitled to preferential treatment or greater latitude regarding limitation periods compared to private citizens. Emphasizing that a valuable right accrues to the opposing party once the limitation period expires, the Court held that delay should not be lightly condoned without substantial reasons. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred, establishing that administrative negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for extending statutory limitation periods.

  Questions settled

  • Is the government entitled to preferential treatment or greater latitude regarding limitation periods compared to private litigants?
  • Does internal administrative indecision or routine bureaucratic delay constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the Supreme Court Rules?
  • Is the mere fact that valuable property rights are involved a sufficient ground for condoning inordinate delay in filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd., Nowshera vs Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs1979 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-11
  central exciseproduction capacity taxationexport rebatecotton fabrics and yarnsubordinate legislationvires of rulesnature of excise duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the validity of amendments made to rule 8 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, and The Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968, promulgated under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal questions involve whether the Central Board of Revenue acted intra vires when it amended the rebate rules to restrict export rebates to the production capacity of specific categories of cloth and yarn, and whether excise duty can legally be levied on goods manufactured for export. The Supreme Court held that the amendments are intra vires, valid, and neither arbitrary nor retrospective in an illegal sense, and that excise duty is constitutionally leviable upon the production and manufacture of goods irrespective of their subsequent export. The key principles laid down are that the power to grant a rebate under section 37(2)(xvi) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is limited to refunding duty actually paid or due on produced categories, that subordinate legislation will not be struck down as unreasonable unless manifestly unjust or oppressive, and that excise duties are taxes on local production or manufacture and may validly apply to goods later exported.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Central Board of Revenue has the authority under section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to restrict export rebates category-wise based on production capacity?
  • Can excise duty be validly levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on goods that are subsequently exported out of Pakistan?
  • Does the statutory power to grant a rebate of excise duty permit an exporter to claim a refund exceeding the excise duty paid or payable on the production capacity of the exported goods?
  • In what circumstances can subordinate legislation framed by a delegatee of the Legislature be struck down by courts on the ground of unreasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nasir Ahmad vs Haji Muhammad Ismail1979 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-27
  evictionlandlord and tenantstatutory noticedisplaced personsrent restrictionquestion of factspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an eviction order passed against a tenant by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, specifically regarding the service of statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, and whether the tenant was denied a fair opportunity to argue his case. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the service of notice was a question of fact already determined by the lower courts, confirming the existence of a statutory tenancy. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court found that the tenant had been provided ample opportunity to present his arguments in the appellate and revisional stages, rendering the initial grievance insignificant. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the eviction order while granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises, subject to the regular payment of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the service of notice be challenged in a second appeal?
  • Does the failure to argue a case before a Rent Controller invalidate an eviction order if the party was heard in subsequent appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arshad vs LT. Gen. Faiz Ali Chishti Etc.S1979 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-25
  contempt of courtscandalizing the judiciarymotivated petitionobstructing the course of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt petition filed by a practising advocate against the respondents alleging a conspiracy to arrange firing at the residence of High Court Judges and the making of statements in newspapers obstructing the course of justice during the pendency of a murder appeal. The Supreme Court examined the petition and a subsequent miscellaneous application requesting the contempt matter to be heard before the decision of a pending review petition. The Court observed that no copies or details of the alleged statements were provided and that the petitioner failed to explain the nexus between the contempt matter and the review petition. Holding that the petition was motivated and not genuinely intended to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court dismissed both the contempt petition and the miscellaneous application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt petition be entertained without furnishing copies or details of the alleged statements claimed to obstruct the course of justice?
  • Whether a contempt petition aimed at purposes other than upholding the dignity of the judiciary can be dismissed as motivated?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Ghani Ghumman vs Murree Improvement Trust, Murree1979 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-30
  arbitration agreementplot allotmentresumption of landapproach roadcivil appealamicable settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute arose from the failure of the Murree Improvement Trust to provide a suitable approach road to Plot No. 53, allotted to the appellant in 1954. After arbitration proceedings regarding the passage were initiated and an award was set aside by the Civil Court, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the arbitration clause in the sale agreement covered the dispute. During the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal, the Trust resumed the plot due to the appellant's failure to construct a building, a decision challenged in a separate pending civil suit. The Supreme Court facilitated a settlement wherein the appellant agreed to accept the existing passage provided by the Trust, provided the Trust considered restoring the plot, which had since been auctioned to a third party. The Court disposed of the appeal based on this compromise, allowing the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if his grievances regarding the restoration of the plot were not addressed by the Trust.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause in a sale agreement cover disputes regarding the provision of essential amenities like access roads to an allotted plot?
  • Can a public authority resume a plot of land for non-construction when the authority itself has failed to provide the necessary access required for construction?
  • Is an appellate court empowered to dispose of an appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties during the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Other vs Miss1979 PLD Supreme Court 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14
  natural justicedisciplinary proceedingsexamination malpracticeex parte proceedingsadministrative lawstudent disqualificationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a High Court judgment that set aside the disqualification of a student. The student had been accused of cheating in an examination based on allegations of tampered answer sheets. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which were conducted ex parte and relied on evidence collected behind the student's back, were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary action was invalid, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused and that charges be based on substantial material rather than mere suspicion. The Court found that the Board’s proceedings were arbitrary, lacked sufficient evidence, and violated fundamental procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Board's petition, upholding the finding that the disqualification order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary body rely on evidence collected in the absence of the accused student?
  • Does a charge-sheet that merely reproduces the wording of a rule without factual details satisfy legal requirements?
  • Is a court justified in declaring a disciplinary order to be without lawful authority when it is based on suspicion rather than evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Billu Alias Inayatullah vs The State1979 PLD Supreme Court 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26
  acquittal appealre-appreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtocular evidencecriminal appealmisreading of evidencepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed the petitioner's acquittal for murder. The core legal question concerned the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an acquittal in a state appeal. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the power to review evidence in acquittal appeals, it must adhere to established principles: giving weight to the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, respecting the presumption of innocence, and ensuring the accused receives the benefit of any reasonable doubt. In this case, the High Court erred by misreading the record, overlooking significant contradictions in the prosecution's ocular evidence, and improperly relying on a retracted statement made by the accused in the committing court. The trial court had correctly identified these evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the original acquittal was restored, as the appellate interference was not justified under the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the High Court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal in a state appeal?
  • Can a High Court base a conviction on a statement made by an accused in a committing court that was subsequently retracted in the trial court?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to reverse an acquittal based on a re-appreciation of evidence without identifying a glaring miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi and Others vs Bashiran and Other1979 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-10
  inheritance disputedisplaced personmutationconcurrent findings of factwrit petitionsettlement commissionerspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner. The dispute originated from the inheritance of landed property owned by a displaced person, Ghulam Muhammad, which had been mutated in favor of the petitioners in 1953. Respondent No. 1, claiming to be an heir as the daughter of the deceased's daughter, challenged this mutation. Following protracted litigation, the High Court had previously remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner, who subsequently determined that the respondent was entitled to a share in the inheritance based on evidence presented. The petitioners challenged this finding before the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decision, finding that the Settlement Commissioner's order was based on a factual determination supported by the petitioners' own earlier depositions. Consequently, the Court held that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a competent authority, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a competent authority when it is based on the evidence of the parties themselves?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of a Settlement Commissioner that is based on a factual determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Din and Another Shujaat Khan vs President, Special Miltary Court1979 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Durrani and Others vs Shahzad Mir and Other1979 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-18
  land acquisitioncompensation disputeexpeditious disposaljudicial discretiontrial court delayleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over compensation for improvements—specifically an orchard, houses, and a tube-well—made on land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector referred the dispute regarding entitlement to the compensation amount to the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that, while dismissing the first respondent's appeal, directed the Senior Civil Judge to expedite the disposal of the pending objection petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court's directions regarding the expeditious disposal of the case were improper or warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions were within its discretion and proper. The Court expressed regret over the trial court's failure to adhere to the High Court's timeline, noting that long adjournments defeated the spirit of the judicial directive. The petition was dismissed, with the principle affirmed that trial courts must strictly adhere to higher court directions for expeditious case disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with a High Court's discretionary direction to a trial court for the expeditious disposal of a case?
  • Is a long adjournment by a trial court, contrary to a specific High Court directive for early hearing, considered a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1979 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22
  post-conviction bailsuspension of sentenceexpedited hearingcriminal appealSupreme Court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had declined his application for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending his criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had instead expedited the hearing of the main appeal, directing that it be fixed within six months. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail while expediting the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality or procedural violation, as it refrained from commenting on the merits and reasonably accommodated the petitioner by expediting the trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a High Court expeditiously fixes a criminal appeal for hearing within a short timeframe, the refusal of post-conviction bail pending appeal does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing post-conviction bail when it has ordered an early hearing of the criminal appeal?
  • Does the refusal to grant bail pending an expedited appeal suffer from any illegality when the High Court expresses no opinion on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Barish Ali and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-26
  ocular evidenceinterested witnessesindependent corroborationsudden fightrecovery of weaponmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the murder and assault convictions of the appellants. The core legal questions involve the assessment of tainted ocular evidence, the necessity of independent corroboration in cases of deep-seated village enmity, and the applicability of sudden fight exceptions. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to heavily interested and hostile witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, discarded recovery evidence, and material contradictions regarding who fired the fatal shot. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside, establishing principles regarding the unreliability of related eye-witness testimony without independent support in sudden, unpremeditated affrays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony from heavily interested and related witnesses can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine independent eye-witnesses available at the scene weaken its case?
  • Can a conviction for murder stand when the medical evidence and site inspection render the specific attribution of the fatal shot doubtful?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon admitted to be already in police possession can serve as valid corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Bantva Memon Co Operatve Housing Society Ltd. and Others vs Anis1979 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25
  special leave to appealinjunctioninterim orderspeaking orderbalance of convenienceirreparable lossremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an interim order passed by the Sind High Court restraining the petitioners from making any construction on the disputed land pending the disposal of the main intra-court appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in issuing an injunctive order against the petitioners without rendering a speaking order addressing crucial considerations such as a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and held that the impugned order was legally infirm as it was not a speaking order and failed to deal with the necessary judicial considerations. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after hearing the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunctive order passed by a High Court without considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss is sustainable?
  • Is a High Court required to pass a speaking order while granting interim relief affecting property rights?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter back for a fresh decision when the impugned order fails to address material contentions of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mahmood Etc. vs Muhammad Khan1979 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-09Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain Khan vs Muhammad Siddique Khan and Other1979 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19
  family settlementinheritancebenami transactionancestral propertydisplaced persons land settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed lower court decrees in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question concerned whether a registered deed executed by the petitioner prior to the partition and subsequent legislation—whereby land allotted to him in Pakistan in lieu of property fictitiously transferred in India was to be treated as part of their late father's ancestral estate—constituted an enforceable family settlement or a mere gratuitous admission. The Supreme Court held that the document embodied a bona fide family settlement arrived at for lawful consideration to maintain peace and harmony among heirs, and was fully binding. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the transaction was not hit by subsequent legislation and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the property and the family arrangement were unassailable. The key principle laid down is that a bona fide family arrangement or settlement regarding future inheritance executed voluntarily for consideration is valid, enforceable, and distinct from a gratuitous transfer or a testamentary disposition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deed executed by a family member acknowledging property as ancestral and surrendering rights for peace and harmony constitutes an enforceable family settlement?
  • Can a plea regarding the cancellation of a document or the distinction of personal property be raised for the first time in second appeal without being pleaded or put in issue?
  • Does Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 invalidate a voluntary agreement executed by an allottee regarding the future devolution of land prior to the Act coming into force?
  Read full judgment →
• Ataul Haq and Another vs Master Ghulam Rasool1979 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19
  pre-emptionregular second appealstatutory noticeburden of proofspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's regular second appeal upholding the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerns the failure of the lower courts to explicitly dispose of issue No. 4 regarding the service of a legal notice on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the High Court's view were fully justified, as the petitioner failed to lead any evidence or duly prove the copies of the notices at the trial stage, and no statutory notice as required by law was served on the plaintiff-pre-emptor. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits after condoning the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of courts to dispose of an issue is fatal when no evidence was led by the party on that point?
  • Is a pre-emption suit liable to succeed where no statutory notice as required by the Punjab Pre-emption Act was served on the plaintiff?
  • Whether documents produced at a late stage without being duly proved in evidence can be relied upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Mohammad vs Sabra and 4 Other1979 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcross-versionaggressormurdersupreme courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case involving murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting and refusing to cancel bail where cross-versions exist, the accused also sustained injuries during the incident, and the question of which party was the aggressor requires determination at trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to cancel bail under the circumstances, noting that contentions regarding the misuse of bail concessions could be raised before the trial court with proper material. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that bail granted upon consideration of cross-injuries and the issue of aggression warrants no interference by the apex court at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted to accused persons in a murder case should be cancelled when cross-injuries are sustained by both parties and the question of aggression is yet to be determined?
  • Can an allegation of abuse of bail concession by suborning witnesses be raised before the trial court with proper materials?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to cancel bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Shah and Another vs The State1979 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24
  quashment of proceedingspublic servantbogus certificatespecial judge anti-corruptionscheduled offencescriminal breach of trustfraudulent appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The petitioners were accused of securing appointments as teachers under a municipal corporation by producing bogus qualification certificates, subsequently facing trial before a Special Judge Anti-Corruption under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and trial before a Special Judge are maintainable when the alleged forgery of certificates occurred prior to the petitioners' formal appointment as public servants. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the offense was completed the moment the accused reported for duty and joined service procured on the basis of the forged certificates, and that they continued to hold the posts and draw salaries on that basis. The key principle laid down is that using a forged certificate to secure employment and subsequently joining service constitutes a continuing or completed transaction making the appointee liable as a public servant under the relevant anti-corruption and penal laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings under anti-corruption laws are maintainable against a public servant who allegedly produced a forged qualification certificate before obtaining the appointment?
  • At what point is an offense relating to the procurement of public employment by means of a forged certificate completed?
  • Can an offense that is not a scheduled offense under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 be tried jointly with scheduled offenses by a Special Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Mahn400d and 2 Others vs The State1979 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-18
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdercommon objectcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 149, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to the petitioners on the ground that they were only attributed simple injuries, and whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the same under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly cancelled the pre-arrest bail, observing that the ground relied upon by the Sessions Judge was not available for granting pre-arrest bail, especially when the accused were named in the First Information Report for serious offences and no mala fides or political motives were alleged. The petition was accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may seek post-arrest bail after being taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground that an accused was only attributed simple injuries in a murder case?
  • Are the grounds for granting post-arrest bail identical to those required for pre-arrest bail?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court cancel pre-arrest bail granted by a lower court?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan (A. Khan) vs Chotey Khan1979 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-31
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantstatutory noticedefault in rentdenial of relationshipremand of casecompetency of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant. The landlord, having acquired the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, served a notice under Section 30 of the Act. The tenant contested the ejectment application, asserting that no landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the statutory notice was invalid because it was addressed to 'Ayub Khan' instead of his name, Amanullah Khan. The High Court found that the tenant was known by both names, validating the notice. It further ordered the tenant's ejectment directly, noting that since the tenant had denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent, remanding the case to determine default would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that because the tenant denied the relationship and defaulted on rent, no purpose would be served by remanding the case. The Court also ruled that the petitioner, having himself invoked the High Court's jurisdiction via a second appeal, was disentitled by his conduct from challenging the competency of that appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 is valid if addressed to an alias or alternative name by which the tenant is known?
  • Can a tenant who has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing an appeal subsequently challenge the competency of that appeal to seek special leave from the Supreme Court?
  • Is it necessary to remand an ejectment case to the Rent Controller to determine the issue of default if the tenant has already denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Khan vs Mst. Begum Jan and Another1979 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-18
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentrent controllerspecial leave to appealconcurrent findingslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was a legal defaulter in rent payment given his pleas of adjustment for repairs and bonds, and an established practice of paying rent in lump sums. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the adjustment, his default in paying rent from August 1974 to December 1974 was wilful and contumacious, and subsequent delayed tenders did not cure the earlier default. Furthermore, past acceptance of lump-sum rent by the landlord does not absolve the tenant from the statutory obligation to pay rent regularly. The petition was dismissed, upholding the ejectment orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether past acceptance of lump-sum rent by a landlord absolves a tenant from the liability to pay rent regularly as it falls due?
  • Can uncorroborated oral testimony of a tenant suffice to prove adjustment of rent against alleged expenses incurred on house repairs?
  • Does a delayed tender of rent for a subsequent period cure an earlier wilful default in the payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs Rajba and Other1979 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-04
  acquittal appealocular testimonychance witnessesmedical evidencewitness credibilityappreciation of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case involving the deaths of three individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court determined that the alleged eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was fabricated, as evidenced by inconsistencies in their statements and the lack of credible corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found that the medical evidence directly contradicted the ocular testimony, particularly regarding the nature of the injuries and the weapons allegedly used. The Court also noted that the jail records relied upon by the prosecution appeared to be tampered with. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is demonstrably false, inconsistent with medical findings, and lacks independent corroboration, it cannot form the basis for a conviction, especially in an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence is strengthened.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on ocular testimony when the witnesses are proven to be chance witnesses and their presence at the scene is fabricated?
  • Does medical evidence that contradicts the specific details of ocular testimony regarding weapon usage and wound types warrant the rejection of that testimony?
  • Is an acquittal by the High Court sustainable when the prosecution's case relies on witnesses whose testimony is inconsistent with medical reports and whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 6 Other vs Federal Land Commission and 2 Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-01
  interim ordersstay ordersconstitutional petitionimplied repealLaws (Continuance in Force) Orderduration of interim ordersHigh Court powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions directed against a common order of the Lahore High Court concerning the duration of interim stay orders issued during the pendency of writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question is whether Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977—which extended the life of interim orders from sixty days to six months—stood impliedly repealed by a subsequent amendment adding an Explanation to Article 2(2) of the said Order via C. M. L. A. Order No. 6 of 1977. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of implied repeal does not apply, as both provisions can be harmonized and Article 2-A operates as a specific exception that continues to govern the tenure of interim orders. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that specific provisions regarding the duration of interim constitutional orders remain intact despite general amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 stood impliedly repealed by the subsequent promulgation of C.M.L.A. Order No. 6 of 1977?
  • Can the Explanation added to Article 2(2) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 be reconciled with Article 2-A of the same Order?
  • What is the maximum permissible tenure of an interim stay order passed by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution read with the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977?
  • Does the doctrine of implied repeal apply when two statutory provisions dealing with the same subject-matter can be harmonized?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Nazar Hussain Shah and Another1979 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderfurther inquiryaffidavits of eye-witnessesmedical evidencesupreme court review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the grant of bail to the respondent accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail was rightly granted to the respondent on the basis of affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating him and discrepancies in the medical evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the affidavits formed part of the record to be considered for connecting the accused with the offence, thereby bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the medical evidence did not prima facie corroborate the prosecution case. The key principle laid down is that affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating an accused can be duly considered at the bail stage as part of the material to determine if a case falls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and appellate courts will not interfere with the discretionary grant of bail if exercised in accordance with settled principles.

  Questions settled

  • Can affidavits of eye-witnesses exculpating an accused be considered when deciding a bail application?
  • Whether the grant of bail based on further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference when supported by material on record?
  • Does uncorroborated first informant statement alongside contradictory medical evidence justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 2 Others vs Abdulah Khan1979 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-25
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionproprietary rightsconsolidation of villagessecond appealspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petitioners' pre-emption suit. The dispute involved a sale of land measuring 90 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Mallo Mahe, which the petitioners sought to pre-empt on the ground that they were owners in the estate and Patti. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, holding that the respondent-vendee did not acquire full proprietary rights in another parcel of land purchased in the amalgamated village of Sattokey. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that by virtue of section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the respondent had become an owner of the purchased property and thus the plaintiffs had no superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the merger of the villages were hypothetical and belatedly raised. The Supreme Court consequently refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vendee acquires full proprietary rights in land purchased from an allottee under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Does a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit have a superior right when both parties own land in the amalgamated estate?
  • Can a new factual or legal contention regarding the merger of villages be raised for the first time in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Mahmood vs Ghulam Ahmad1979 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and Other vs The State1979 PLD Supreme Court 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-04
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidenceF.I.R. delaymisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in ocular testimony, the timing of the F.I.R., and the reliability of recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was inherently unreliable, noting that the ocular witnesses were biased, their testimony contradicted medical evidence, and the F.I.R. appeared to be a result of deliberation following a counter-version provided by an injured accused. Furthermore, the Court found the High Court misread evidence regarding blood-stained clothing and failed to properly evaluate the motive. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits; a conviction cannot be sustained merely by highlighting the weaknesses of the defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to provide independent corroboration in a case of disputed ocular evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained based solely on the weakness of the defense case?
  • Does the failure to chemically examine alleged blood-stained clothing undermine the reliability of ocular testimony?
  • Is ocular evidence credible when it contradicts medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and the nature of injuries?
  • Should an F.I.R. be considered unreliable if it is lodged after the police have already received a counter-version of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hasan and Another vs Sh. Bashir Ahmad and Another1979 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs The State1979 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04
  review petitionpost-arrest bailmurder caserule of parityfirearm injurieserroneous grant of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed seeking review of the Supreme Court's order dated 14th December 1977, which had dismissed the petitioner's criminal petition for special leave to appeal seeking bail in a pending murder case. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to bail on grounds of parity because co-accused persons had been granted bail despite similar initial allegations in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court observed that during the investigation, the injured witnesses specifically attributed firearm injuries resulting in two deaths and three injured persons to the petitioner, whereas the co-accused were merely alleged to have thrown brick-bats or used blunt weapons. The Court held that even if the co-accused had been erroneously granted bail, that fact would not automatically entitle the petitioner to the same concession. Consequently, the Court found no error apparent on the record to justify review and dismissed the review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly attributed with causing fatal firearm injuries is entitled to bail on the ground of parity if co-accused have been granted bail?
  • Does the erroneous grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused in the same case to bail as of right?
  • Whether a review of an order refusing leave to appeal against a bail rejection is maintainable where the petitioner's case is distinguishable from that of co-accused granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The University of the Punjab1979 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-29
  university disciplinary proceedingsexamination malpracticeforged notificationnatural justicescope of examination regulationsstudent disqualificationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the disqualification of a medical student by the University of the Punjab for three years following allegations that he procured a forged notification declaring him successful in his final examination. The appellant challenged the disciplinary order, arguing that Regulation 13 of the University’s "Conduct of Examinations" applied only to conduct within the examination hall and that the decision was based on no evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the "conduct of examination" encompasses the entire process from the commencement of the first paper until the official notification of results. Consequently, the University was competent to penalize the appellant for his involvement in the forged notification. Furthermore, the Court rejected the "no evidence" argument, noting that the Disciplinary Committee had sufficient material, including the appellant's own contradictory explanations regarding his knowledge of the forgery and his conduct. The Court affirmed that while disciplinary bodies must act in good faith and provide a fair opportunity to be heard, they are not bound by the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the scope of examination regulations regarding unfair means extend to conduct occurring outside the examination hall?
  • Is a university disciplinary committee required to follow the strict procedural formalities of a criminal trial when conducting an inquiry?
  • Can a student be disqualified for procuring a forged notification of examination results under regulations governing the conduct of examinations?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and Another vs Mst. Umatul Islam1979 PLD Supreme Court 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-06
  sublettingejectmentpartnershiplandlord and tenanturban rent restrictiontenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the eviction of the petitioners (tenants) from a disputed shop. The landlady filed an eviction application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, alleging that the principal tenant had unlawfully sublet the shop to the sub-tenant without her written consent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the arrangement constituted a partnership rather than subletting and that the petition was mala fide for enhancing rent. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, determining that it was a clear case of subletting for pecuniary consideration, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the tenants' second appeal. The Supreme Court examined the agreement between the parties, which revealed that the principal tenant had surrendered possession of half the shop for a substantial sum and transferred liabilities, amounting to unlawful subletting. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factual arrangement constituted a clear subletting rather than a partnership or mere license, and affirmed the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of a partnership business in a rented premises by a tenant involving a third party amount to subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
  • Whether the transfer of possession of a portion of rented premises for pecuniary consideration and shifting of rent liabilities constitutes an unlawful subletting?
  • Can a partnership agreement be treated as a mere license when the terms reflect the transfer of exclusive possession and liability to a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Muhammad Razzaq Alias Abdur Razzaq1979 PLD Supreme Court 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-27
  second appealrent restrictioncertified copylimitationcondonation of delaymandatory requirementejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a second appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a tenant, failed to file a certified copy of the Rent Controller's order with his second appeal, as required by Order XLII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court refused to dispense with this requirement and subsequently dismissed the appeal after the petitioner failed to explain the significant delay in filing the necessary document. The core legal questions were whether the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment is a mandatory requirement for a second appeal and whether the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the filing of such a copy is mandatory and failure to do so renders the appeal improperly constituted. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation for the delay, justifying the refusal to condone it under Section 5.

  Questions settled

  • Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment a mandatory requirement for a second appeal under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a second appeal be considered properly constituted if it is not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment of the court of first instance?
  • Does the failure to explain each day's delay justify a refusal to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can the High Court's refusal to dispense with the filing of a certified copy be challenged after the petitioner has already attempted to comply with the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The State1979 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-20
  post-arrest bailplea of alibimurdercriminal investigationinconsistent statementsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to grant bail to the appellant in a murder case. The appellant, accused of causing multiple injuries resulting in death, sought bail primarily on the basis of a plea of alibi, claiming he was in Multan for eye surgery at the time of the occurrence. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail given the appellant's inconsistent alibi claims and the evidence presented during the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal of bail was sound and unexceptionable. The Court observed that the appellant had provided contradictory accounts of his whereabouts and failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate his alibi, relying instead on inconclusive statements. Furthermore, the Court noted that the argument regarding the applicability of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 became moot as the final challan had already been submitted to the trial court. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of a final challan to the trial court render a plea for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 moot?
  • Is a court justified in refusing bail when an accused provides inconsistent and unsubstantiated pleas of alibi during the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsanul Haq Etc. vs Abdul Rahim1979 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-12
  rent restrictionmis-joinder of partiesmis-joinder of causes of actionRent Controller not a courtreconstruction of propertyprocedural irregularityprejudice to merits
  Summary & questions settled

  The six petitioners, tenants of the respondent in Rawalpindi, challenged their eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed up to the Lahore High Court. The landlord had filed a joint eviction application against all tenants seeking vacant possession for bona fide reconstruction. The Rent Controller and appellate forums held that the landlord's requirement for reconstruction was proven in good faith and rejected the tenants' plea that the joint application was bad for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action.

  On petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent factual findings on bona fide reconstruction. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court held that a Rent Controller acting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is not a regular civil court, and strict provisions or technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply. Furthermore, under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, procedural irregularities such as mis-joinder do not invalidate an order unless prejudice is shown on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint eviction application filed against multiple tenants invalidate rent proceedings on the ground of mis-joinder of causes of action?
  • Is a Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 bound by the strict procedural technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an eviction order be set aside for procedural irregularities without showing that actual prejudice was caused to the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar Etc. vs Punjab Province Etc.S1979 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-16
  temporary injunctionirreparable losschakbandicanal officercivil revisionspecial leave to appealwater supply
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs' civil revision and upheld the appellate court's order setting aside a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit challenging a canal officer's order transferring certain land to different tube-well chakbandis, and sought a temporary injunction restraining its implementation. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a temporary injunction against the administrative transfer of water supply chakbandi. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because the petitioners failed to demonstrate any irreparable loss or adverse effect on their water supply resulting from the impugned administrative order. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that proof of irreparable loss and a prima facie case are essential prerequisites for granting a temporary injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted without establishing irreparable loss?
  • Does the transfer of land between tube-well chakbandis by a canal officer warrant interference through a temporary injunction when no adverse effect is shown?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Sheru and 8 Other1979 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycross-versionmurderjudicial discretionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order by the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents accused of murder and rioting. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision was based on valid considerations, including that the deceased's injuries were caused by blunt weapons, the case was initially registered under lesser offences before the victim's death, and the F.I.R. failed to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons. Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that four individuals from the accused side also sustained injuries in the same transaction, supporting the High Court's finding that the case required further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious and dismissed the petition. The key principle affirmed is that where there is a cross-version or injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry to justify the grant of bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail if the reasons provided are neither arbitrary nor capricious?
  • Is a case for further inquiry established when the F.I.R. fails to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore and Another vs Ahman Etc.S1979 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  unauthorized water usagecanal and drainageretrospective legislationinfructuous appealstatutory interpretationwatercourse definitionspecial charges
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the imposition of special charges for the unauthorized use of canal water under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The respondents were penalized for making a cut in a government-maintained distributory. The High Court held that Section 33 of the Act applied exclusively to 'watercourses' and not to government-maintained canals, rendering the penalty ultra vires. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the impact of the Canal and Drainage (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1971, which substituted Section 33 to explicitly include unauthorized water usage from canals with retrospective effect. The Court observed that while this amendment effectively nullified the legal basis of the High Court's decision, the amendment was enacted after the High Court's judgment and was not raised in the initial leave petition. Consequently, the Court held that it could not impugn the High Court's judgment on that ground. Ultimately, the Court determined that the appeals had become infructuous due to the legislative change and dismissed them, noting that the legislative objective had been achieved.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 apply to government-maintained canals or only to watercourses?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a High Court judgment based on a legislative amendment that was enacted after the High Court's decision and not raised in the leave petition?
  • What is the effect of a retrospective legislative amendment on pending appeals challenging a lower court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 Other1979 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-09
  Permanent Transfer DeedSettlement propertyRight of hearingAuction purchaserTransfer priceProperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a house in Shahdra, Lahore. The petitioner, having purchased the property at auction and obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), challenged an order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (D.S.C.) that cancelled his transfer in favor of a respondent who claimed prior payment of the transfer price. The High Court had previously directed the D.S.C. to rehear the matter after hearing both parties, as the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the P.T.D. could be cancelled without a conclusive determination of the competing claims regarding the payment of the transfer price. The Supreme Court held that the final adjudication of rights depended entirely on the factual determination of whether the respondent had actually paid the transfer price. Consequently, the Court upheld the direction for a rehearing, clarifying that if the respondent failed to establish payment of the transfer price before the D.S.C., the petitioner's P.T.D. must stand revived.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be cancelled by a Settlement Authority without a conclusive determination of the payment of the transfer price?
  • Is it mandatory for a Settlement Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to an auction purchaser before cancelling a transfer order?
  • Does the failure to establish payment of the transfer price by a claimant entitle an auction purchaser to the revival of their Permanent Transfer Deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Abdul Shakoor1979 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-24
  attachment before judgmentfurnishing securityappealable ordersrevision applicationadequate security
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal impugning an order of the Sind High Court which dismissed a revision application against an order of the Additional District Judge concerning the attachment of property before judgment. The core legal question involved whether an order of attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure is appealable and whether a party who voluntarily furnished security can challenge the adequacy proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while an order of attachment passed under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q), the petitioner suffered no prejudice because he had voluntarily undertaken to furnish adequate security. The Court laid down the principle that an order of attachment before judgment under Rule 6 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q), and despite procedural misconceptions by lower forums, a party who has undertaken to provide security must provide adequate security as determined by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of attachment passed under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(q)?
  • Does Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to setting aside ex parte orders or only ex parte decrees?
  • Can a party who voluntarily furnished security challenge the adequacy of such security determined through an architectural valuation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razaq vs Abdul Hamid1979 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-10
  evacuee propertylandlord and tenantstatutory protection periodpremature applicationsubsequent eventsevictionurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding an evacuee shop in Kohat. The respondent, who purchased the shop from a transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the District Judge allowed the eviction, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the eviction application was not maintainable under section 30 of the Act because it was filed before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period. The core legal question was whether an eviction application filed prematurely before the expiration of the protection period under section 30 must be dismissed, or if relief could be granted since the period expired during the pendency of the litigation. The Supreme Court held that section 30 does not bar the filing of an application during the protection period, but only prohibits actual ejectment before its expiry. Relying on the principle that courts may take notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation and do complete justice, the Court ruled that an otherwise premature application can be decreed if the cause of action matures during the proceedings. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eviction application filed before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is legally maintainable?
  • Can a court take notice of subsequent events and decree an eviction application that was premature at the time of its institution?
  • Does section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 bar a transferee landlord from filing an eviction application during the subsistence of the tenant's protection period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan and Another vs Hafiz Muhammad Bakhsh and Another1979 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-18
  court-feedeficiency in court-feespecific performancecontumacydiscretion of courtRegular First Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular First Appeal filed against the decree for specific performance of agreements to sell land. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant time to make up a deficient court-fee where the appellant's counsel claimed a clerical error in computation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the discretion under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure is normally exercised in favour of a litigant, it cannot be extended to cases involving contumacy, positive mala fides, or lack of a bona fide mistake where a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party. The key principle laid down is that the court's discretionary power to allow the making up of a deficient court-fee will be withheld in the presence of contumacy or absence of a bona fide explanation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discretion to allow the making up of a deficient court-fee under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised in cases of contumacy?
  • Does a mistaken computation by a clerk constitute a sufficient ground for extending time to pay court-fee when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent?
  Read full judgment →