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.

• Division Manager (Zonal), Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan Gujranwala Versus Khushi Muhammad1988 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Khairoo Versus Muhammad Yaqoob1988 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  condonation of delaytime-barred petitionlimitationsufficient causeSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was filed with a delay of two days. The core legal question considered by the court was whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the petition, where the applicant pleaded confusion in calculating time. The Supreme Court held that the plea had no basis and that no valid justification existed for condoning the delay, especially since a valuable right had accrued to the respondents. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a vague plea of confusion in calculating limitation periods, unsupported by plausible grounds, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether confusion in calculating time constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
  • Can a time-barred petition be entertained when a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Khan Kundi Versus N.-W.F.P.1988 SCMR 1909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Islam Coal Co. Versus Ghulam Rasool1988 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22
  evictiontentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in payment of rentgrant of leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. A tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the deposit of arrears and future monthly rent. Subsequently, an application under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-payment of future rent was dismissed by the Rent Controller, who found that the petitioner had misunderstood the tentative order and accepted the explanation as satisfactory. However, upon appeal by the respondents, the High Court set aside the Rent Controller's order and directed eviction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court was unjustified in interfering with the Rent Controller's discretionary acceptance of the explanation regarding an ambiguous order, and that the eviction application itself was liable to be dismissed due to prior deposit of arrears under an amended provision. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller's order accepting the tenant's explanation regarding ambiguity in a tentative rent order?
  • Whether an application for striking off defence under section 13(6) of the Rent Ordinance is liable to be dismissed if arrears of rent are deposited before the filing of the written statement following the 1984 amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Baluchistan Versus Abdul Nabi1988 SCMR 1906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25
  limitationcondonation of delaydepartmental delaygovernment litigationtime-barred petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a time-barred petition filed by the Government of Baluchistan seeking leave to appeal, with a delay of 111 days. The core legal question is whether procedural delays caused by internal departmental movement of files and obtaining sanctions from various government quarters constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under the law of limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the Government cannot claim any special treatment or exemption regarding limitation periods compared to ordinary litigants. The ratio decidendi is that bureaucratic delays and inter-departmental examinations do not furnish a valid or sufficient ground for condoning delay, and each day of delay must be properly and satisfactorily explained. The key principle laid down is that government departments must organize their affairs efficiently to institute legal proceedings within the prescribed limitation period, as administrative red tape does not excuse non-compliance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether internal departmental proceedings and movement of files constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
  • Can the Government claim a different standard or preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
  • Does the excuse of delay caused by obtaining sanctions from various government quarters justify the extension of the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MowasibatTalab-e-Ishhadcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding disputed land, which was dismissed by the trial court after it found that the necessary formalities of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad had not been effectively proved. The dismissal was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in civil revision. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal, contending that there was a conflict of opinion regarding the proof of these pre-emption formalities, specifically pointing to a differing view previously taken in Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad. The Supreme Court examined the contention and held that the matter required further examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the necessary formalities regarding the performance of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad were effectively proved by the plaintiffs?
  • Whether there exists a conflict of opinion in judicial precedents regarding the proof of pre-emption demands requiring resolution by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus State1988 SCMR 1903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08
  Zina-bil-Jabrdefinition of adultpubertystatutory interpretationleave to appealHadood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, for Zina-bil-Jabr. The Federal Shariat Court had upheld his conviction while acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner challenged the conviction primarily on the ground of his age at the time of the occurrence, arguing he was a non-adult. Relying on medical evidence and previous case law, the petitioner contended that the mere presence of semen does not satisfy the statutory definition of an 'adult' under Section 2(a) of the Ordinance, which requires specific physical developmental markers such as the growth of pubic and axillary hair and voice deepening. The Supreme Court observed that the definition of an 'adult' and whether the secretion of semen alone is decisive for determining puberty under the Ordinance required authoritative interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the precise legal criteria for determining adulthood in the context of the Ordinance, while maintaining the petitioner's existing bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the secretion of semen alone satisfy the definition of an 'adult' under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
  • What are the mandatory physical criteria required to establish that a male has attained puberty under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Versus Nawazish Ali1988 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11
  murdermurderous assaultappreciation of evidencedaylight occurrenceinjured eyewitnessesreduction of sentencepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a criminal trial for murder and murderous assault. Several accused were charged with the murder of one person and the assault of others. The trial court convicted certain accused under section 302/34 and section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, awarding death and imprisonment for life, while acquitting others. On appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the death sentence of one convict to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence in a daylight occurrence and the propriety of the High Court's reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were unexceptionable, noting that the presence of injured eyewitnesses and the corroborating medical evidence firmly established the guilt of the petitioners, and found the reasons given by the High Court for sentence reduction to be plausible. The petitions for leave to appeal and enhancement were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of injured eyewitnesses is sufficient to establish their credibility in a daylight murder occurrence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding conviction?
  • Whether plausible reasons given by the High Court for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 1899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lshauqe Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 1898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Umrao Versus Miss Uzma Vahid1988 SCMR 1891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31
  custody of minorshabeas corpusGuardians and Wards Actterritorial jurisdictioninterim custodySection 491 Cr.P.C.welfare of the minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a custody dispute between divorced parents over two minor daughters. The respondent mother initiated proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in Lahore, while the petitioner father initiated separate proceedings in Abbottabad. Simultaneously, the respondent filed a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the Lahore High Court, alleging the father was obstructing the legal process and illegally detaining the minors. The High Court ordered the minors to remain in the mother's custody until puberty. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine custody while Guardians and Wards Act 1890 proceedings were pending, and whether the High Court's order was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 491 to secure the production of minors in cases of improper detention or obstruction, it cannot use this summary jurisdiction to make a permanent custody determination. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order regarding custody until puberty, directing that final custody be adjudicated by the relevant Guardian Court based on the welfare of the minors.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine the permanent custody of minors?
  • Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 exclude the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible for a High Court to pass an order granting custody of minors until puberty in proceedings initiated under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad Versus Ghulam Rasood Khan1988 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10
  criminal appealacquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurder convictionspecial leave to appealquestions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially accepted an appeal against a conviction for murder. The accused, Naurang Khan and his father Ghulam Rasul Khan, were originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Aslam Khan. The High Court acquitted the father but maintained the conviction and sentence of the son. The complainant sought to challenge the acquittal of the father, while the convicted son sought to challenge his own conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the submissions and the evidence on record. The core legal question was whether the High Court's findings on the facts and evidence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the arguments presented by the complainant's counsel essentially sought a re-appraisal of evidence on questions of fact, which the Court declined to undertake. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on a re-appraisal of evidence?
  • Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when it merely seeks a re-evaluation of factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan Versus Bazi Khan1988 SCMR 1888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionOffence of Zinacriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1, who was accused of abducting a minor girl under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The High Court had admitted the respondent to bail on the ground that subsequent police investigation found him innocent and that the case required further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant appealed, contending that the mere possibility of further inquiry does not justify bail under Section 497(2) and that the statutory conditions were not met. The Supreme Court held that reading the High Court's order and the investigative material as a whole, both the investigating officer and the court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence, which satisfies the mandatory requirement for bail under Section 497(2). The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case is a sufficient ground for granting bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory to release an accused on bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once the court or officer concludes there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Can a police report finding an accused innocent during subsequent investigation form the basis for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06
  abductionraperestitution of conjugal rightsfamily court decreecriminal trialremandhudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court convicting the appellants under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment, along with convictions under Section 10(3) of the said Ordinance. The prosecution case involved the forcible abduction and rape of the complainant's sister by the accused persons, who broke into the house armed with sticks and caused injuries to the inmates. The core legal question was whether an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by a Family Court in favor of the accused constitutes conclusive proof of a valid marriage, taking precedence in a criminal trial involving charges of abduction and rape where the status of marriage is in dispute. The Supreme Court held that while a Family Court judgment on a valid Nikah has direct bearing on a criminal trial, the lack of record regarding pleadings and documents before the Family Court prevents a definitive finding. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both lower courts, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial after summoning the Family Court record.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment of a Family Court regarding a valid Nikah take precedence in a subsequent criminal trial involving the same parties?
  • Can an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights serve as sufficient proof of a valid marriage in a criminal charge of abduction?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when the record of a civil family proceeding relied upon by the accused is missing or incomplete?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Versus Muhammad Ashraf1988 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29
  rent restrictionevictionconstitutional jurisdictiondefault in payment of rentlandlord and tenantspecial forum discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three appeals arising from rent restriction eviction proceedings where the Lahore High Court had set aside eviction orders against tenants. The primary legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the special rent forum regarding the alleged default in rent payments. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could substitute its own discretion for that of the special forum when determining if a default had occurred. Upon review, the Court found that in one case, there was no default if the rent payment made to the landlord's father was accepted as valid. In the other two cases, the High Court had correctly reviewed the record and receipts, which demonstrated that no actionable default remained. The Supreme Court affirmed that payment to the landlord's father, in the absence of ill-will, constituted a valid discharge of the tenant's liability. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's interference was justified, and the appeals were dismissed as lacking substance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a payment of rent made to the father of a landlord be considered a valid discharge of a tenant's liability?
  • Is the High Court's exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction appropriate when it reviews the discretion exercised by a special rent forum regarding rent default?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to re-examine factual findings regarding rent payment receipts in Constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector (PWD) D&R Central Region Lahore Versus Rana Motors Ltd., Lahore1988 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuecompulsory acquisitioncompound interestreference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from cross-appeals concerning the determination of compensation and interest for land acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,500 per marla, which was upheld by the Senior Civil Judge but subsequently enhanced by the Lahore High Court to Rs. 4,000 per marla based on market value evidence. The owner sought further enhancement, while the Collector challenged the High Court's increase. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's valuation of Rs. 4,000 per marla, noting that the owner had specifically claimed this rate in the pleadings and paid court fees accordingly. However, regarding interest, the Supreme Court held that under the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act 1969 (referred to as Amendment Act No. 3 of 15th March 1969), the owner was legally entitled to compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of taking possession until the date of final payment. Consequently, the owner's appeal was partly allowed to grant the compound interest, while the Collector's appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landowner can claim compensation at a rate higher than what was originally pleaded and upon which court fees were paid?
  • Whether the owner of acquired land is entitled to compound interest on the compensation amount from the date of possession to the date of payment under the 1969 amendment to the acquisition law?
  • Can the Collector's arbitrary guess-work in assessing market value be sustained when reliable evidence of market value is available on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadi Khan Versus Subhan Khan1988 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30
  evacuee land allotmentSettlement and RehabilitationMartial Law Regulation No. 9Mukhbari applicationsitting allottee preferenceconcurrent findingscancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelling the allotment and confirmation of evacuee agricultural lands made in favour of the appellants. The respondents' previous allotments were cancelled under Martial Law Regulation No. 9, entitling them to preferential accommodation. After discovering bogus allotments through an informant application, the respondents sought allotment, but their claim files were improperly seized by Enforcement Police without cause. Despite an express directive from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restraining allotment until the files were returned, the authorities confirmed the disputed land in favour of the appellants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with costs, holding that the confirmation in favour of the appellants was executed in direct violation of lawful administrative directions and marred by material irregularities. The Court affirmed that displaced persons whose claims were unlawfully obstructed are entitled to preference, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed absent legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of evacuee land made in express violation of a restraining direction issued by a competent Settlement Authority is legally valid?
  • Can claimants whose claim forms were improperly detained by enforcement authorities be deprived of their statutory priority or preferential rights for land allotment?
  • Whether concurrent factual determinations regarding irregularities in settlement allotments can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Noor. Versus Khudai Rahim,1988 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Ejazi Begum1988 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  limitationcivil suitprovisional transfer orderpermanent transfer deedsettlement proceedingstime-barred suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit and subsequent regular first appeal, which were thrown out on the preliminary issue of limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners' suit for declaration and injunction, filed on 29 December 1980 to challenge transfer orders issued in 1961 and 1964 and an adverse appellate settlement order from 1965, was barred by time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action accrued at least by 1965 upon the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, making a suit filed in December 1980 manifestly time-barred. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, laying down that a civil suit challenging administrative settlement orders filed long after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act is incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • When does the cause of action for challenging a settlement order through a civil suit arise under Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
  • Whether a civil suit filed in 1980 to challenge settlement transfer orders from 1961 and 1964 and a 1965 appellate decision is barred by time?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima Versus Abdul Wahid1988 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Tahafaz-E-Haqooq-E-Shahrian, Qauidabad Versus Muhammad Iqbal1988 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq Versus Government of Baluchistan1988 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Versus State1988 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10
  leave to grantmurderdying declarationinimical witnessesre-appraisal of evidenceocular testimonycriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and fine. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of the ocular testimony given by inimical witnesses and the voluntariness and credibility of the deceased's dying declaration recorded in the presence of relatives amidst potential identity disputes. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both the convict's petition and the complainant's petition to thoroughly re-appraise the entire evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that where serious questions are raised regarding the corroboration of interested witnesses and the trustworthiness of a dying declaration, the apex court will grant leave to re-examine the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony from witnesses who are admittedly inimical to the accused without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a dying declaration recorded by a police officer in the presence of relatives, where a dispute regarding the identity of the assailant existed, can be considered voluntary and reliable?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case concurrent findings of lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Rishi Versus Raza Muhammad Khan1988 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Versus Ghulam Rasool1988 SCMR 1868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22
  rent restrictionstriking off defencetentative rent orderarrears of rentleave to appealdefault in payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the respondents' application to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order dated 8-7-1986. The Rent Controller's order required the deposit of rent arrears for a specific period but notably omitted any direction regarding the payment of future monthly rent. The respondents sought to strike off the defence due to non-payment of rent for July 1986. The petitioner argued that in the absence of a specific direction for future rent in the initial order, no default occurred regarding subsequent months. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that an amendment to the relevant rent legislation, effective 1-10-1984, rendered the respondents' application liable to dismissal because the petitioner had deposited the claimed arrears before filing the written statement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised regarding the scope of the rent order and the impact of the legislative amendment required further judicial examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-payment of future rent if the Rent Controller's initial tentative order did not explicitly direct the payment of such future rent?
  • Does the deposit of claimed arrears of rent before the filing of a written statement protect a tenant from having their defence struck off under the amended provisions of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus Muhammad Inam1988 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus Muhammad Afzal1988 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
• Salamatullah Versus Settlement Commissioner, Jhang1988 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07
  settlement lawagricultural landbuilt-up areawrit jurisdictionconcurrent findingsdisplaced personsevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the classification of property as either urban built-up area or agricultural land under the settlement laws following the partition of the subcontinent. The appellants claimed the property as urban property transferred to them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, while the respondent contended it was agricultural land allotted to him against a verified claim. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the Settlement Department functionaries, who determined the property was agricultural land based on evidence, were subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the property's status as agricultural land was a question of fact supported by oral and documentary evidence, including Jamabandi records showing cultivation. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court, affirming that findings of fact based on proper consideration of material on record are not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities?
  • Does the classification of property as agricultural land versus urban built-up area constitute a question of fact?
  • Is a property considered agricultural land if it was under cultivation at the time of Independence, despite the presence of minor structures?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmad Versus Tanseef-Ur-Rehman1988 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Begum Versus Aisha Bibi1988 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz Patwari Versus Assistant Commissioner, Khanewali1988 SCMR 1859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Quddus Raja Versus Government of the Punjab1988 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Versus Karamat Hussain1988 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Sadro Versus State1988 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Manager, Finance (Water), WAPDA1988 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq Ansari Versus Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi.1988 SCMR 1854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Versus Muhammad Ashraf1988 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtinterested witnessescorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges against them. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court failed to examine certain circumstances as corroboration of interested evidence and whether admissions of the respondents regarding their participation along with the recovery of a crime weapon constituted sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant party had changed the complexion of the case and the entire occurrence was shrouded in mystery, making it impossible to discover the truth. The Court noted that in appeals against acquittal, the considerations differ from those in conviction appeals. Holding that the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can the benefit of the doubt be extended to the accused when both parties have withheld the truth and the occurrence is shrouded in mystery?
  • Are the considerations in an appeal against acquittal different from those in an appeal against conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Abdul Salam1988 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Ghulam Mustafa Khar1988 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-08
  leave to appealjudicial reviewconstitutional petitionmartial lawspecial military courtsjurisdictionarticle 270-a
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning writ petitions filed by individuals convicted by Special Military Courts and Ex-Army Officers. The core legal question involves the scope of judicial review and the protection afforded by Article 270-A of the Constitution against actions taken by Martial Law Authorities, and whether such actions and orders are immune from challenge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether Article 270-A validates and renders immune from challenge not only legislative measures like Martial Law Regulations, Orders, and President's Orders, but also every kind of action taken thereunder, noting that similar questions were already under consideration in other connected petitions. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order pending the hearing of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 validate and render immune from challenge every kind of action taken under Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, and President's Orders?
  • To what extent is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 270-A regarding orders passed and acts done by Martial Law Authorities?
  • Are petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against orders passed and acts done by Military Authorities which are alleged to be mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman Versus Muhammad Feroze1988 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi Versus Taj Muhammad1988 SCMR 1848 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Moghis Asghar Versus State1988 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Versus Muhammad Altaf'1988 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim Versus Muhammad Azam Khan1988 SCMR 1838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-26
  leave to appealsettlement disputetransfer of propertycivil suitconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of a long-standing property dispute regarding the transfer of a house in Quetta under settlement laws. The core legal questions involve the binding effect of prior constitutional judgments, the maintainability of a civil suit challenging settlement and revenue orders, the requirement of a P.T.D. for eviction proceedings, and the issue of limitation regarding a civil suit filed by a rival claimant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed examination, particularly concerning the finality of the High Court's earlier judgment, the binding nature of the Member Board of Revenue's order, and whether the respondent's civil suit was time-barred or based on no evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these legal questions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior judgment of the High Court in a constitutional petition conclusively resolve property transfer controversies between the parties?
  • Can an unchallenged order of the Member Board of Revenue directing the issuance of a P.T.D. be questioned in subsequent civil proceedings?
  • Whether a civil suit challenging property transfer orders filed after several years is barred by limitation?
  • Can a civil court decree a suit for declaration and injunction in the absence of proof regarding tenancy under the Custodian or an application for transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitha Khan Versus Muhammad Younis.1988 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25
  leave to appealremand directionsnon-compliancerejection of plaintcustomary disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision application by the High Court of Baluchistan, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's suit regarding a customary dispute dating back to 1915. The core legal question concerned whether the lower forums and the High Court erred in ignoring the non-compliance of remand directions by the trial court and improperly rejecting the plaint. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the trial court's failure to follow appellate guidelines and the High Court's application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 required deeper examination. The key principle laid down is that lower courts must strictly adhere to remand directions and guidelines issued by appellate forums, and procedural irregularities regarding cause of action and limitation require proper framing of issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to follow the specific guidelines and directions contained in an appellate remand order?
  • Can a plaint be rejected for disclosing no cause of action without framing a specific issue to that effect?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to remand a matter despite acknowledging the trial court's non-compliance with appellate directions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Versus Ghulam Rasool1988 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan Versus Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Quetta Sub-Division, Quetta1988 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29
  land acquisitiondismissal for defaultrestoration of casecompetent authoritypower of attorneyappealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed an appeal against the District Judge's order dismissing an application for the restoration of a land acquisition case for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether an application for the restoration of a reference filed by the Province of Baluchistan could be validly maintained by a counsel appointed solely by the Federal Government, when the Federal Government was not a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, holding that an application for restoration must be filed by the competent party or through proper authorization. The Court established that a counsel cannot appear or file applications on behalf of a party without proper authorization from that specific party, and a non-party or its appointed counsel has no standing to seek restoration of proceedings instituted by a provincial government.

  Questions settled

  • Can a counsel file an application for restoration of a suit on behalf of an entity that has not authorized them or is not a party to the proceedings?
  • Who is the competent authority to seek the restoration of a reference originally filed by the Province of Baluchistan under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of N .W. F.P. Versus General Public of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Versus State1988 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  leave to appealmurderadditional evidenceeye-witness testimonyhostile witnesslife imprisonmentSection 428 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which affirmed the trial court's conviction of the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on eye-witness testimony, the recovery of a blood-stained dagger upon arrest, and supporting evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing the petitioner's application under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to call two named independent eye-witnesses as additional evidence, where those witnesses submitted affidavits contradicting the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of power to take additional evidence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. rests upon the satisfaction of the appellate court. The Court observed that the witnesses were untraceable during trial despite process and had become hostile or influenced by the defence. Finding no violation of established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the exercise of power to record additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the satisfaction of the appellate court?
  • Can an appellate court refuse an application under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to examine unsummoned witnesses who submit affidavits favoring the accused if they appear to have been influenced or kept away during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhsh Ali Versus Ali Gul1988 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Versus Federation CF Pakistan1988 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Article 270-Amartial lawMilitary Courtsconstitutional petitionjurisdictioncoram non judiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves twelve petitions for leave to appeal arising from judgments of the Sind High Court concerning the constitutional validity and scope of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, introduced by the Eighth Amendment. The core legal question is whether Article 270-A completely bars constitutional petitions under Article 199 against convictions and actions taken by Military Courts and authorities during the martial law period, or whether such challenges remain competent on grounds of being without jurisdiction or coram non judice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of public importance, noting the contentions regarding the absolute immunity of martial law orders versus the restricted judicial review power under Article 199. The Court granted leave, ordered security, recorded the Attorney-General's assurance that death sentences would not be executed pending the appeals, and stayed further proceedings before the High Court in the related petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely bar petitions under Article 199 against convictions by Military Courts?
  • Does the scope of judicial review under Article 199 extend to actions of military authorities that are without jurisdiction or coram non judice?
  • Whether Martial Law Orders incorporated into the Constitution via Article 270-A enjoy the same immunity from challenge as constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Versus State1988 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  leave to appealmurderous assaultinterested witnessesocular testimonybroad daylight incidentappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' joint appeal and upheld their convictions and sentences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad. The petitioners were charged with making a murderous assault on the injured complainant in broad daylight. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and credibility of the eye-witnesses, specifically concerning their status as interested persons and the lack of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the relationship between the parties, the occurrence of the incident in broad daylight ruling out mistaken identity, and the absence of any infirmity in the testimony of the eye-witnesses justified the dismissal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of interestedness when the incident occurs in broad daylight, identity is not in doubt, and their evidence is found consistent and trustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground that they are related to the victim?
  • Does an incident occurring in broad daylight eliminate the possibility of mistaken identity of the assailants?
  • Is independent corroboration strictly required when the eye-witnesses are natural witnesses and related inter se to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamidullah Versus State1988 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Allah Rakha1988 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
• Gehna Versus Hameedani1988 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Bibi Versus Sharifan Bibi1988 SCMR 1812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Pak Feeders Versus Sultan Poultry Farm1988 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammadbakhsh Versus Saban1988 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Saleem Versus Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 1809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
• Afahmood Ullah Versus Administrator (Residual Properties) Lahore Division1988 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Versus Said Muhammad1988 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-19
  abatement of suitpartial abatementtotal abatementlegal representativesdeclarationpermanent injunctionseverable share
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) to protect their land ownership and possession. During the trial, one of the defendants died, and his legal representatives were not impleaded within the limitation period, prompting the trial court and the first appellate court to hold that the suit had abated in its entirety. On revision, the Lahore High Court reversed this finding, holding that because the deceased defendant's share in the disputed land was a distinct, severable fraction (one-sixth) as per the revenue records, the abatement was partial and limited only to his share. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that where the share of a deceased defendant is specific, fixed, and ascertainable, and the cause of action is severable without the risk of passing contradictory decrees, the suit abates only to the extent of the deceased's share rather than in toto.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant results in the total abatement of a suit when the deceased's share in the property is distinct and severable?
  • What is the legal test to determine whether an abatement of a suit is partial or total?
  • Can a suit for declaration and permanent injunction proceed against surviving defendants if it has abated against a deceased defendant who held a specific, ascertainable fraction of the disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 1803 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Nazoo Versus Hassu Khan1988 SCMR 1801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Gullai1988 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab1988 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22
  State landpublic auctioncanal watersale deedleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing their writ petition, which had challenged the Collector's refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for the supply of canal water to their purchased State land. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the land at a public auction subject to a condition that an additional sum representing the difference between the market value and the purchase price would be paid if the land subsequently became capable of canal irrigation. Although this condition was omitted from the formal sale deed, the Collector withheld the certificate until the said difference was paid. The core legal question was whether the auction condition regarding the payment of the additional price remained enforceable despite its omission from the subsequent sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding the unenforceability of the un-incorporated condition needed consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a condition of a public auction enforceable against a purchaser if it is omitted from the formal sale deed?
  • Can the Collector withhold a no-objection certificate for canal water supply to compel payment of an additional land price?
  • Whether the omission of a term from a sale deed extinguishes prior auction conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Aiwaz Khan Versus Allah Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
• Zubeda Begum Versus Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-10Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Ltd. Versus Federal Government of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  excise dutyrefund of excess dutycondonation of delaywrit petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning a claim for the refund of excess excise duty paid to the department. The core legal question involves whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition while directing the relevant authority to dispose of the pending application for condonation of delay expeditiously in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's direction was a positive one requiring the authority to act in accordance with the law and that the petitioner could approach the authority for proper relief upon hearing and consideration of relevant questions. The Court further noted the appropriateness of examining whether the respondent department had a voluntary obligation to refund admitted amounts and whether rules barring such refunds are ultra vires the law and the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a direction by the High Court to an authority to dispose of a time-barred refund application expeditiously constitutes a sufficient positive direction?
  • Is it the duty of a government department to discharge its obligation voluntarily to refund admitted amounts of excess duty?
  • Whether rules preventing the refund of excess duty without a formal timely demand are ultra vires the law and the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Amina Bi Versus Muhammad Abbas Butt1988 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29
  custody of minorsGuardians and Wards Actwelfare of minorsmaternal grandmotherfather custodywrit jurisdictionfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute between the maternal-grandmother (petitioner) and the biological father (respondent) over three minor children following the mother's death during childbirth. The respondent-father filed an application for custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, which the Guardian Judge initially dismissed. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed that decision and granted custody to the father on the ground of the minors' welfare. The petitioner challenged this before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed her constitutional writ petition in limine. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the welfare of the minors was best served by granting custody to the biological father over the maternal-grandmother and whether the High Court properly declined to interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the finding regarding the welfare of the minors was a factual determination properly made by the appellate court on the record, which could not be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with an appellate court's finding of fact concerning the welfare of minors in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the biological father can be granted custody of minor children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in preference to their maternal-grandmother where it is found to serve the welfare of the minors?
  • Does a finding on the welfare of minors in custody proceedings constitute a finding of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government, Punjab, Finance Department,Lahore Versus Mushtaq Ahmad1988 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
• Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad Versus Muhammad Iqbal1988 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus Muhammad Sadiq1988 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-21
  Letters Patent AppealLimitation periodCondonation of delayReview petitionDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) ActTime-barred appealComputation of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The central legal question was whether a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the respondent was time-barred, specifically regarding the computation of limitation periods and the exclusion of time spent pursuing a review petition and obtaining certified copies. The Supreme Court held that the LPA was indeed time-barred. The Court reasoned that the limitation period for filing the LPA had already expired before the review application was filed and before the copy of the Single Judge's order was requested. Consequently, the time spent pursuing the review application or obtaining copies could not be excluded to extend the limitation period. The Court established the principle that once the limitation period for filing an appeal has begun to run, it does not stop; therefore, time spent in pursuing an alternative remedy like a review petition or obtaining copies cannot be deducted if the original prescribed period for the appeal has already elapsed. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing a review petition be excluded from the limitation period for a Letters Patent Appeal if the limitation period had already expired?
  • Does the time spent obtaining a certified copy of a judgment count towards the limitation period if the application for the copy is made after the limitation period for the appeal has expired?
  • Once the limitation period for filing an appeal has begun to run, can it be stopped by pursuing an alternative remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ibne Muhammad Versus Province of Punjab, Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing1988 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15
  displaced personsland allotmentpending proceedingsrepeal of statutesettlement departmententitlement certificateevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons whose claims were verified in 1958 but remained unfulfilled due to administrative delays. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to land allotment after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975, despite the absence of pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, holding that the mere verification of a claim and issuance of an entitlement certificate did not constitute 'pending proceedings' for allotment. Consequently, there was no legal basis to compel the authorities to allot land after the statute's repeal. The key principle laid down is that rights to land allotment under the settlement scheme are contingent upon the existence of formal, pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Court acknowledged the appellants' harsh treatment by the Settlement Department and expressed an expectation that authorities would still attempt to adjust the claim if land were available.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of an entitlement certificate constitute 'pending proceedings' for the allotment of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975?
  • Can a claim for land allotment be enforced after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975 if no allotment proceedings were pending?
  • Does the failure of administrative authorities to act on a verified claim create a vested right to land allotment after the repeal of the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat Bibi Versus Mst. Hashmat Bibi1988 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06
  settlement of claimslimitation periodlocus standifraudulent applicationconstitutional petitioncondonation of delayrehabilitation settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition challenging orders passed by settlement authorities regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning a significant delay in filing a revision petition and whether the respondent had a valid claim to the property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision. The Court found that the respondent failed to pursue her claim diligently, noting an unexplained delay of over thirteen years in challenging the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent's claim form appeared to be manipulated, as the registration date preceded the date of the application itself, and evidence indicated the respondent's son was aware of the transfer years prior. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondent lacked clean hands and had no locus standi. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and affirming the original settlement decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be allowed when there is an unexplained delay of over thirteen years in challenging an administrative order?
  • Does the manipulation of a claim form and the presence of fraudulent entries disentitle a party from seeking relief?
  • Can a party claim ignorance of a property transfer order when evidence shows their family member was aware of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ashraf Versus University of the Punjab1988 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27
  civil revisionadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionfraud and forgeryremand of proceedingsinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendant to lead additional evidence during the pendency of a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded during the trial. The appellant had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding the validity of his M.A. English degree, which was decreed in his favour after the defendant failed to lead evidence. The First Appeal was dismissed, and during the pendency of the revision petition, the High Court permitted the defendant to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that while ordinarily additional evidence is not recorded at the revisional stage, exceptional cases exist where the interest of justice and the requirements of the court demand it, especially in matters involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and missing primary records. The Supreme Court maintained the order permitting additional evidence but set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and remanded the proceedings to the District Judge for a fresh decision after recording and evaluating the relevant evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court allow additional evidence to be produced during the pendency of a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether exceptional circumstances justify the recording of additional evidence at the revisional stage when a party failed to produce evidence during the trial?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for an appellate or revisional court when primary evidence is not led and secondary evidence is admitted without determining statutory conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Baig Versus Irshad Begum1988 SCMR 1775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01
  limited estateMuslim successioncustomary lawinheritance sharesshariat applicationwidow estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the inheritance and exact shares of parties following the termination of a limited estate held by Mst. Rakhi, widow of Ditta, who died in 1962. The core legal question concerned the determination of the exact shares to which the contesting parties were entitled under Muslim Law and applicable statutory provisions following the termination of the limited estate under customary law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower forums, and declared the modified shares of the respective parties in accordance with the provisions of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, and established principles of Muslim succession law. The key principle laid down is that upon the termination of a female limited estate, succession opens out to persons entitled at the time of the last male owner's death, with presumptive devolution applied to intermediate deceased heirs as mandated by statute.

  Questions settled

  • How is succession determined upon the termination of a Muslim female's limited estate held under customary law?
  • What is the effect of Section 3 of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1948 on the devolution of property when intermediate heirs have died?
  • Are limited estate holders legally competent to deprive the heirs of the last male owner through a will or compromise decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin Versus Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 1771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Shah Versus Divisional Engineer Development II, I . T . R . , Islamabad Pakistan1988 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar Bibi Versus Hamad1988 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27
  specific performanceagreement to sellleave to appealPardah observing ladyappellate interferenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Mst. Anwar Bibi against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed her regular second appeal in limine, thereby affirming the decree of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 112 kanals and 18 marlas, initiated by the respondents. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreement or the payment of earnest money, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The petitioner contended that as a Pardah observing lady, the agreement was not legally proved and no consideration was paid. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all contentions raised by the petitioner. Observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal flaw, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the case did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted where the petitioner fails to demonstrate any legal flaw or misreading of evidence in the High Court judgment?
  • Does the status of a Pardah observing lady automatically invalidate an agreement to sell if the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration are otherwise established by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman Versus Town Committee, Rabwah1988 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18
  leave to appealjurisdictionplace of suingremandcompulsory retirementPunjab Civil Courts OrdinanceCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by an employee against a Town Committee challenging his compulsory retirement, which was decreed in his favour by the trial court and upheld in first appeal. However, the High Court accepted the respondent's civil revision, set aside the decree, and remanded the case for retrial at the district headquarters under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, relying on precedent. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that Section 24(2) created a mere technical defect without prejudice to the respondent and that Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was overlooked. The Supreme Court considered whether an objection regarding the venue or place of trial under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 could justify setting aside a decree in revision without satisfying the strict conditions laid down in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Leave to appeal was granted to examine this question.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree be set aside in revision on grounds of improper venue under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 without satisfying the requirements of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mira Khan Versus Ghulam Farooq1988 SCMR 1765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Ghazi Versus Kishwar Sultan Jehan Begum1988 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-13
  miscellaneous petitionreview petitionprocedural defectinfructuous petitionrecall of orderlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner seeking the recall of a prior Supreme Court order dated 20-10-1985, which had dismissed the petitioner's earlier Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 490-R of 1983 as infructuous. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a direction compelling the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer specific property to him, claiming he was unable to adequately present his case during the previous hearing due to short notice. The core legal question was whether a miscellaneous petition could be used to challenge and recall a final order of the Court without following the formal procedure for filing a review petition. The Court held that the miscellaneous petitions were procedurally defective as they effectively sought a review of a final order without complying with the prescribed rules for review petitions. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the petitioner could not be joined as a party or substituted in a withdrawn review petition when the original relief sought by the review petitioner was distinct from the petitioner's own claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a miscellaneous petition be used to challenge a final order of the Supreme Court without filing a formal review petition?
  • Does the withdrawal of a review petition by the original petitioner render a third party's application to join that review as a party infructuous?
  • Is a party entitled to be substituted as a petitioner in a review petition if their claimed relief differs from the relief originally sought by the review petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan Versus Assistant Collector1988 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18
  land ejectmentconstitutional petitiondiscretionary jurisdictiontenancyex parte decreecompensation for improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court in a land ejectment case. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly declined discretionary relief due to the petitioners' dilatory conduct and whether technical objections regarding the restoration of the suit and the omission of compensation adjudication warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was justified given the petitioners' delinquency in prolonging proceedings for twelve years, and that the omission of compensation determination did not invalidate the ejectment. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down include that discretionary constitutional relief will be withheld from litigants whose conduct is marked by delay and frivolous applications, and that a tenant's claim for compensation for improvements does not invalidate ongoing ejectment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can decline discretionary constitutional relief to tenants who prolong ejectment proceedings through frivolous applications?
  • Does the omission of the determination of compensation for improvements invalidate a land ejectment order?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when technical objections regarding the restoration of a suit are found to be unfounded by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Versus Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1988 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29
  daily allowancetemporary headquartersrailway employeesleave to appealservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Railways against the judgment of the High Court upholding the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the Railways Administration to pay daily allowances to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Special Ticket Examiners, for periods they served at Multan upon their own request due to lack of accommodation at their respective headquarters. The core legal question is whether Rule 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1, permits the payment of daily allowance when an employee's halt at a place exceeds 10 days, treating it as a temporary headquarter. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner needed examination and granted leave to appeal, while suspending the orders of the High Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal and directing that any amounts already paid should not be recovered during the pendency of the appeal. The key principle established relates to the interpretation of service rules concerning temporary headquarters and daily allowances for railway employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1, permits the payment of daily allowance when the halt of an employee at any place exceeds 10 days?
  • Does a place of halt exceeding 10 days become a temporary headquarter for the purpose of denying daily allowances under the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Pearls Fabrics Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Ali Versus Superintendent of Police, Mianwali1988 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali Versus Noor Muhammad1988 SCMR 1757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Versus Chairman, Central Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 1756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mateh Versus State1988 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Ahmad Versus Sultan Mubaraz1988 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar Versus Rehana Tanvir1988 SCMR 1751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Nawab1988 SCMR 1750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27
  revisional jurisdictionsale deedland disputeproperty shareSupreme Court petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The property dispute involves rival registered sale-deeds executed by the same owner, Mst. Irshad Begum, selling shares of land in village Pindi Gheb, District Attock to the petitioner and the respondent respectively. The core legal question concerns whether the land sold to the respondent formed part of the land previously transferred to the petitioner. The trial court answered in the affirmative, but the Additional District Judge took a contrary view, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction with the factual findings of the lower appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent or appellate findings on land identification in revision do not warrant Supreme Court interference without jurisdictional error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the identification of land sold through registered deeds?
  • Does a petition against concurrent or appellate findings on land demarcation warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Versus Fayyaz Begum1988 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionmutationsale considerationleave to appealconcurrent findingsagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas in Jhelum. The land was originally sold to the petitioner, Abdur Rashid, via Mutation No. 4910 in 1973. The respondent, Mst. Fayyaz Begum, filed a suit for pre-emption, asserting a superior right of pre-emption and challenging the sale consideration. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit based on findings of mala fides and estoppel, the District Judge reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent. The Lahore High Court subsequently upheld the appellate decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in determining the respondent's superior right of pre-emption and the validity of the sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the appellate court and the High Court regarding the respondent's superior right. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments in favor of the respondent's pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a niece possess a superior right of pre-emption over a stranger purchaser regarding the land of her uncle?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by the appellate court and the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aisha Bibi Versus Abdul Wahab1988 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
• Aisha Bibi Versus Abdul Wahab1988 SCMR 1746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
• Inayat-Ul-Haq Versus Sald Muhammad Khan1988 SCMR 1743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab Versus Akbar Hussain1988 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18
  retrospective legislationvalidation actstatutory interpretationdissolution of corporate bodyexecutive authorityPunjab Road Transport Board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the dissolution of the Punjab Road Transport Board and subsequent consequential orders, such as employee retirement and termination, to be illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the Government of the Punjab possessed the executive authority to dissolve the Board established under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and whether such actions could be validated retrospectively. During the pendency of the appeals, the Provincial Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1988, was enacted, which explicitly amended Section 70 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. This amendment granted the Government the power to dissolve the Board and retrospectively validated all actions, notifications, and orders issued on or after May 9, 1985, notwithstanding any prior court judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the legislative intervention effectively cured the infirmities identified by the High Court. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, establishing the principle that valid retrospective legislation can override judicial decisions regarding executive actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the legislature retrospectively validate executive actions that were previously declared illegal by a court?
  • Does the power to establish a corporate body under a statute inherently include the power to dissolve it?
  • What is the effect of a validation act on pending litigation challenging the underlying executive actions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad Saeed Versus Rehman Dayar Khan1988 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-20
  administrative lawjurisdiction of Governordelegation of powersTribal Areas administrationproperty disputeinheritance under Rewaj
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, examining whether the Governor of N.-W.F.P. had jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, in a property dispute originating in Chitral. A dispute over the estate of the former Mehtar of Chitral led to various proceedings regarding maintenance and inheritance rights for a widow, Mst. Khorkasha Khunza, who was ultimately awarded 41 Chakorams of land as an absolute owner by the Additional Commissioner. A revision against this order was dismissed by the Officer-on-Special Duty / Joint Secretary, who had been specifically empowered by the Provincial Government under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969. Subsequently, the Governor of N.-W.F.P. entertained an application and set aside the decision. The High Court set aside the Governor's order, holding that the Governor lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that once the Provincial Government's powers under the relevant notifications had been validly exercised and exhausted by its designated delegate, neither the Government nor the Governor retained jurisdiction to interfere further.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Governor of N.-W.F.P. had jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in revision under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969?
  • Did the Provincial Government retain jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter after delegating its appellate and revisional powers to an authorized officer under notification?
  • Whether an order passed by a delegatee exercising powers under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969 is open to further interference by the executive head?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Versus Behram Khan1988 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19
  pre-emptionoccupancy rightsco-shareragricultural landpleadingssuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff-appellant regarding the sale of occupancy rights in agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the sale of occupancy rights is pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, and whether the plaintiff, having claimed co-sharership in the property sold, possessed a superior right of pre-emption despite the High Court's finding that he failed to specifically plead co-tenancy. The Supreme Court held that occupancy rights fall within the definition of 'land' under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, and are thus subject to pre-emption. Regarding the pleadings, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s claim of being a co-sharer in the property sold was sufficiently explicit to cover his interest in the occupancy rights. The Court ruled that while the plaintiff could not claim a superior right over the entire Khata due to the nature of the allotment, he was entitled to pre-empt the sale specifically in respect of the Khasra number where he was a co-sharer. The principle established is that a pre-emptor may exercise a superior right of pre-emption over specific property where they are a co-sharer, provided the claim is clearly articulated in the pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Are occupancy rights considered 'land' subject to the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Does a co-sharer in a specific Khasra number have a superior right of pre-emption over the sale of occupancy rights in that same Khasra number?
  • Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption based on co-sharership if the pleadings do not explicitly use the term 'co-tenant' but clearly assert co-ownership of the property sold?
  • Does the allotment of specific portions of evacuee land create a joint tenancy or co-sharership among allottees of the same Khata?
  Read full judgment →