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.

• Muhammad Ismail vs The Chief Settlement Commissions and 4 Oteer1973 PLD Supreme Court 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-09-13
  evacuee propertyallotment orderrent controllerrehabilitation of displaced personspossessiontransfer of propertypreferential right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the transfer of an evacuee house in Karachi, contested between the appellant and respondent No. 5. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Rent Controller under the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1947, could be deemed a valid "allotment order" under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the respondent could claim possession based on such an order. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller’s order was merely an exercise of ordinary rent jurisdiction and not an allotment for the rehabilitation of displaced persons. Consequently, the respondent could not rely on it to establish a preferential right. The Court affirmed that the appellant, holding a valid prior allotment from a competent authority, possessed a superior right to the transfer of the property. The judgment establishes that an order by a Rent Controller does not constitute an "allotment" of evacuee property unless specifically issued for the rehabilitation of displaced persons, and that extended definitions of "possession" cannot override the requirement of a valid order from a competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order passed by a Rent Controller under the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1947, be treated as a valid allotment order under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does an order of a Rent Controller directing a landlord to let out premises constitute an allotment for the purposes of the rehabilitation of displaced persons?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of an extended definition of possession under government notifications when they hold an allotment order passed by a competent authority on a later date?
  • Does a prior allottee have a preferential right to the transfer of evacuee property over a subsequent claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Another vs Settlement Commissioner and Another1973 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-12-14
  permanent transfer deedcompensation poolsettlement commissioneragreement of associationconstitutional jurisdictiondisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed shop room under settlement laws, where the petitioner initially obtained a transfer order that was later modified, leading to public auction of the shop and purchase by the petitioner, followed by issuance of a permanent transfer deed and subsequent sale to a second petitioner. Meanwhile, the respondent pursued revision proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, who set aside the auction purchase and directed the property's transfer to the respondent. The High Court summarily dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition under Article 98, holding that findings of fact by the Settlement Commissioner could not be interfered with. The core legal questions involved whether the issuance of a permanent transfer deed divested settlement authorities of jurisdiction and whether technical irregularities in filing transfer forms should defeat an otherwise valid claim based on an agreement of association. The Supreme Court held that the permanent transfer deed remained subject to pending appeal and revision proceedings, and that substantial justice was done as the claimant was lawfully entitled through association. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a permanent transfer deed deprive settlement authorities of jurisdiction while appeal or revision proceedings are pending?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner in a proceeding under Article 98 of the Constitution?
  • Whether an irregular procedure in filing a C. S. Form defeats a substantive right of transfer based on a valid agreement of association.
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1973 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-17
  criminal breach of trustpublic servantentrustment of propertyaccomplice testimonyland revenuecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of a judgment by the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, a Wasil Baqi Navis (Revenue Accountant), under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code for criminal breach of trust in respect of land revenue collections. The core legal questions involved whether lambardars testifying against the petitioner were accomplices requiring corroboration, and whether an entrustment of funds contrary to the written procedural rules but in line with established departmental practice satisfies the requirement of acting in the capacity of a public servant under section 409. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the lambardars were not accomplices, sufficient corroborative evidence existed to prove entrustment and misappropriation, and the phrase 'in his capacity of a public servant' encompasses entrustments arising from accepted departmental practices associated with the post, not strictly limited to a written charter of duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether lambardars who hand over collected land revenue to a revenue accountant are to be treated as accomplices whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  • Does the phrase 'in his capacity of a public servant' under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code relate strictly to a written charter of duties, or does it embrace actions performed in accordance with accepted departmental practices?
  • Can a public servant be held liable for criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the funds were entrusted to him contrary to the formal written procedure but pursuant to a recognized practice of the office?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and Another vs Mst. Bakhtawar and Other1973 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-08
  civil appealtemporary injunctioninterim arrangementreceiverejectment proceedingsPunjab Tenancy Actrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court accepting a revision petition concerning an interim injunction in a property dispute. The underlying dispute relates to agricultural land gifted by the late Khuda Bakhsh to his two sons, the appellants, which gift was challenged by the other excluded heirs in a civil suit on the ground of undue influence. During the pendency of a second appeal in the High Court regarding the validity of the gift, the appellants initiated ejectment proceedings against a tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The respondents filed a separate suit challenging the ejectment proceedings and obtained a temporary injunction from the trial Court, which was vacated by the District Judge but restored by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court observed that the core controversy involved interim arrangements for the collection of produce (Batai) during the pending litigation. Holding that the interests of the parties could be equitably protected, the Court disposed of the appeal by allowing the appellants to withdraw their undisputed one-half share of the Batai proceeds, and permitting the respondents to withdraw the remaining half upon furnishing adequate security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with an order of the District Judge passed with jurisdiction?
  • Can co-owners initiate ejectment proceedings against a tenant without joining other co-owners?
  • What are the principles for making interim arrangements regarding the collection of produce during the pendency of a property suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram Ullah vs Muhammad Alam and 8 Other1973 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-12
  pre-emptionlimitationfraudregistration of saleagricultural landrevenue records
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's pre-emption suit for possession of agricultural land on the ground of limitation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act on the ground of alleged fraud preventing knowledge of the sale, and whether mere registration of a sale deed constitutes notice. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by time under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, and that the petitioner failed to plead and establish any particulars of fraud attributable to the vendee regarding the registration or subsequent revenue entries, as the responsibility for updating revenue records rests on official functionaries. The Court ruled that registration operates as notice to all and sundry, and incorrect revenue entries alone do not constitute fraud by the vendee. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether registration of a sale deed operates as notice to all and sundry for the purposes of limitation?
  • Can incorrect entries in revenue records maintained by official functionaries be attributed as fraud on the part of the vendee?
  • Whether a plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act without pleading and establishing specific particulars of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad vs The Joint Director, Directorate of Mineral1973 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-25
  mining leasecancellation of leasesuspension of mining operationshow-cause noticenatural justiceBaluchistan Mining Concession Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner was granted a mining lease for excavating Barytes, which was later extended. Due to local lawlessness, tribal interference, and political conditions, the petitioner suspended mining operations and sought permission to assign the lease. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice accusing the petitioner of suspending operations in violation of rule 47 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, and ultimately cancelled the lease without a personal hearing. The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the High Court in a constitutional petition, which was dismissed in limine. Upon appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the only penalty for non-conformance was a fine. The Supreme Court held that under rules 47(a) and 96(1)(iv) of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, the licensing authority was fully competent to cancel the lease for violation of commencement and operation requirements, and that the authority had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice by issuing a show-cause notice and considering the explanation provided. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the licensing authority is competent to cancel a mining lease for violating the provisions regarding the commencement of operations under the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970?
  • Does the cancellation of a mining lease after issuing a show-cause notice and considering the lessee's explanation satisfy the requirements of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hass an vs The State1973 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-17
  death sentencecommutation of sentencejudicial delaymurderextenuating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged a death sentence for the murder of two sisters, arguing for commutation based on the delay in the disposal of the case by the High Court and alleged mental stress. The petitioner contended that the time elapsed between the occurrence and the confirmation of the death sentence, alongside administrative rules regarding the expedition of sessions cases, warranted leniency. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that administrative rules requiring the expeditious disposal of cases do not authorize the commutation of a death sentence merely due to procedural delays. The Court clarified that there is no general principle of law in Pakistan that mandates the commutation of a death sentence solely on the basis of the time taken for judicial proceedings. The decision to confirm or commute a death sentence must rest on the facts and circumstances of each specific case, and the Court found no extenuating circumstances in this instance to justify reducing the sentence for the deliberate murder of the two victims.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the disposal of a death sentence case by the High Court automatically entitle the condemned person to commutation of the sentence?
  • Are administrative rules requiring the expeditious disposal of sessions cases a valid legal basis for commuting a death sentence?
  • Is there a general principle of law requiring the commutation of a death sentence based solely on the time elapsed during judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hakim vs Sher Alam1973 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-16
  adverse possessionrevenue recordsspecial leave to appealprocedural lawdeclaration of titlehostile possessionEvidence Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for a declaration of title over land, wherein the petitioner claimed ownership through adverse possession. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession and whether the lower courts erred by relying on the petitioner's previous statement without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish adverse possession. The Court affirmed that adverse possession must be open, overt, and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner to perfect title by prescription. Mere entries in revenue records, absent evidence of overt acts of ownership, are insufficient to establish such a claim. Additionally, the Court held that a procedural objection regarding the failure to confront a witness with a previous statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872 cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court if it was not agitated before the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a procedural objection regarding Section 145 of the Evidence Act for the first time in the Supreme Court?
  • Is a mere entry in revenue records sufficient to establish adverse possession?
  • What are the essential requirements to establish a claim of adverse possession over land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez Chughtai vs The State and Another1973 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-01
  territorial jurisdictionquashment of proceedingssecond marriageMuslim Family Laws Ordinancetransfer of casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which, while quashing proceedings before a Lahore Magistrate due to lack of territorial jurisdiction regarding an alleged second marriage without permission under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, directed that the complaint be forwarded to the competent Magistrate at Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether a complaint instituted in the wrong territorial jurisdiction should be treated as a dead letter or if it could be forwarded to the court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses ample powers to transfer cases and that the institution of a complaint in an incorrect jurisdiction does not render it a dead letter or invalidate it entirely. The Court laid down the principle that procedural errors regarding territorial jurisdiction do not nullify the complaint itself, and matters of competency and jurisdiction can be raised before the appropriate trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the institution of a criminal complaint in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction render the complaint a dead letter?
  • Can the High Court direct a complaint filed in the wrong jurisdiction to be forwarded to a competent Magistrate for disposal?
  • Can objections regarding the competency of a complaint be raised before the trial Magistrate after transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and Another vs Khan Saeed Ud Din Khan, Settlement1973 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-18
  Permanent Transfer DeedDisplaced Persons ActSettlement of propertyPendente liteLimitation periodAllottee rightsProperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a residential portion of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued during the pendency of litigation is immune from challenge, whether an appeal filed against an uncommunicated order is time-barred, and whether an allottee must clear rent arrears to qualify for transfer. The Supreme Court held that a PTD issued while an appeal or revision is pending is subject to the final outcome of those proceedings and is not immune from attack. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appeal cannot be considered time-barred if the underlying order was never communicated to the affected party. Additionally, the Court clarified that an allottee is not required to clear arrears of rent to be eligible for the transfer of the property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Settlement Commissioner's decision to transfer the property to the respondent, as the proceedings were conducted according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Permanent Transfer Deed issued during the pendency of an appeal or revision immune from legal challenge?
  • Can an appeal be considered time-barred if the order appealed against was never communicated to the aggrieved party?
  • Is an allottee required to clear arrears of rent to be entitled to the transfer of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Feroze vs Sultan Bux Ahd Another1973 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-24
  limitationcondonation of delayLetters Patent Appealcertificate of fitnessremand orderspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 199 days, which the petitioner sought to condone citing his physical disability and the engagement of his brother in military service during the 1971 war. The Court found the explanation insufficient, noting a lack of supporting evidence for the alleged disabilities and an unexplained delay in applying for certified copies of the High Court's orders after the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. On the merits, the petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal for want of a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner argued that the appeal before the High Court was a first appeal, not a second appeal, and thus did not require a certificate. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that because the District Judge had allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment, the subsequent appeal to the High Court was indeed subject to the certificate requirement under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The petition was dismissed on both limitation and merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certificate under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent required for an appeal against an order of remand where the District Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment?
  • Does a delay of 199 days in filing a petition for special leave to appeal warrant condonation based solely on the petitioner's uncorroborated assertion of disability and the military engagement of his representative?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-11
  displaced personspublic auctioncancellation of auctioncompensation bookdefault in paymentconstitution petitionsettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing the appellant's constitution petition concerning the transfer of shops in Peshawar Cantonment. The appellant, a displaced person, offered the highest bid at a public auction but failed to deposit the mandatory twenty-five percent of the bid money and subsequent instalments, as his compensation book balance was insufficient. Consequently, the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelled the auction and transferred the property to another party, an action upheld by the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to cancel the auction and whether such action was restricted solely to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the relevant statutory schedule. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting as Chairman of the Auction Committee and under the terms and conditions prescribed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was fully competent to cancel the auction upon the buyer's default. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities possess the inherent power to enforce auction conditions and cancel transfers to defaulting purchasers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner is competent to cancel a property auction for failure to pay the bid money or whether such action can only be taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  • Can a successful auction bidder maintain a challenge against the cancellation of a provisional transfer order when they have defaulted on the mandatory deposit requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Nizam Din and 4 Other1973 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-11
  evacuee propertyjoint allotmentconstructive possessionindustrial premisespartnership businessDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order concerning the transfer of an evacuee industrial premises. The petitioner and respondent were joint allottees of the property and partners in a business conducted therein. The core legal question was whether the respondent, having been ousted from the partnership business, had also lost 'possession' of the premises, thereby disqualifying them from a joint transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's ouster from the partnership business did not equate to an abandonment of the joint allotment of the premises. The Court reasoned that the joint allotment remained intact and the business operated as a licensee under both allottees; thus, the respondent maintained constructive possession. The Court affirmed that a partner ousted from a business is not necessarily ousted from the possession of the building itself, and dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contention that the respondent had abandoned the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ouster from a partnership business conducted on allotted premises constitute an abandonment of the possession of the premises themselves?
  • Can a co-allottee be considered in possession of industrial premises for the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if they are excluded from the business conducted therein?
  • Does the term 'possession' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include constructive possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 Others vs Muhammad Usman Arm 8 Other1973 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-23
  special leave to appealconstitutional petitionsettlement schemeNCH formtransfer of propertynatural justiceright of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition filed by the respondents as successors-in-interest of Chhotey Khan and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to properly dispose of an NCH form filed by Chhotey Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly set aside the transfer of a property made in favour of the petitioners' predecessor without deciding Chhotey Khan's pending NCH form or affording him an opportunity of being heard, and whether rent receipts established a landlord-tenant relationship creating an estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded the NCH form had not been disposed of in accordance with law since the rejection order was never communicated to Chhotey Khan, and the alleged rent receipts were unreliable. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an administrative or settlement order adversely affecting a party's rights is legally ineffective if never communicated, and disposal of property rights without affording a hearing violates fundamental principles of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative order rejecting a settlement form is legally effective when it is never communicated to the affected party?
  • Does the failure to afford an opportunity of being heard before transferring a disputed property to another party vitiate the transfer order?
  • Can successors-in-interest be estopped from challenging a property transfer on the basis of alleged rent receipts where the landlord-tenant relationship has been expressly denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1973 PLD Supreme Court 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-01
  coram non judiceHigh Court RulesSingle JudgeDivision Benchprocedural irregularityjurisdictionmurderself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted of murder for stabbing a victim with a knife during a quarrel originating from political rivalry. He was sentenced to transportation for life. After his initial appeal was heard and dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court, and special leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court, the appellant filed a fresh appeal in the High Court contending that under the High Court Rules, appeals involving life imprisonment were required to be heard by a Division Bench. A Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding the prior judgment was not without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether a hearing by a Single Judge in breach of High Court practice rules renders the proceedings coram non judice or a nullity. The Supreme Court held that statutory appellate jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court as a institution under Section 410 of the Cr.P.C., not on individual Benches. Procedural rules regulating Bench constitution do not divide or restrict basic statutory jurisdiction; thus, non-compliance constitutes a procedural irregularity rather than a jurisdictional failure. Examining the merits, the Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the hearing of a criminal appeal by a Single Judge in violation of High Court Rules requiring a Division Bench render the judgment coram non judice and a nullity?
  • Does a litigant have a vested right to have an appeal heard by a Bench consisting of a specific number of judges?
  • Does a failure to observe internal practice rules framed under statutory or constitutional powers divest a High Court of its inherent statutory jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aminuddin vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 5 Other1973 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-01-17
  displaced personevacuee propertylocus standisettlement operationstransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, thereby maintaining the cancellation of the transfer of an evacuee house to the appellant and its transfer to the respondents instead. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant qualified as a displaced person under section 2(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether respondent No. 5 had the locus standi to challenge the transfer in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, who maintained a permanent home, family, and ties in Lahore while serving in Delhi and failed to prove he was displaced due to the Partition disturbances, was not a 'displaced person' within the meaning of the Act. The Court further held that respondent No. 5, being a claimant displaced person in possession of part of the property who submitted a duly entertained claim form, possessed the requisite locus standi. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government servant who served in Delhi prior to Partition but maintained permanent family ties and a residence in Lahore qualifies as a 'displaced person' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does a claimant in possession who files a claim form pursuant to an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner have the locus standi to maintain an appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee house?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Allahwarayo Panhwar vs The State1973 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-09-06
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriation of petrolinvalid investigationobjection to investigationpetition for leave to appealprejudice in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Junior Store Keeper, was convicted by the Special Judge under section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the misappropriation of petrol, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, raising a new contention for the first time that the investigation was conducted by an Inspector instead of a D.S.P., thereby vitiating the trial. The Supreme Court held that an objection to the validity of the investigation must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity before the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court, particularly when no prejudice has been shown by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection regarding the validity of an investigation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Does an investigation conducted by an Inspector instead of a D.S.P. automatically vitiate the trial in the absence of prejudice?
  • What is the effect of failing to object to the mode of investigation at the earliest possible opportunity during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alias Mammi vs Punjab Provincial Government through Additional Home Secretary and Another1973 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-23
  writ jurisdictioncircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionTribunal proceedingsconvictionWest Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition against the petitioner's conviction for murder under the West Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1963. The petitioner, convicted by a Tribunal and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment, argued that his conviction was unsustainable because he was not named in the First Information Report and the circumstantial evidence was inconclusive. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in the conviction when there was some evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted properly in dismissing the writ petition. The Court reasoned that it was not sitting as an appellate court to re-weigh the sufficiency of evidence; rather, it only needed to determine if there was some evidence to support the conviction. Since the Tribunal had evidence of an extra-judicial confession and incriminating recoveries, the conviction was upheld. The key principle established is that in writ jurisdiction, the court does not re-evaluate evidence but merely ensures there is some evidence to connect the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, have the authority to re-evaluate the sufficiency of evidence used to convict an accused in proceedings under the West Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1963?
  • Is a conviction sustainable if there is some evidence connecting the accused to the crime, even if the accused was not named in the First Information Report?
  • Can a Tribunal constituted under the West Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1963, act upon joint confessional statements and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and Another1973 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-08
  foreign exchange regulationpenal statute interpretationresidence definitionburden of proofcriminal convictionanimus manendistrict construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the conviction of the appellant under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947 for depositing funds into the bank account of an individual allegedly residing outside Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the recipient was a 'person resident outside Pakistan' as defined by the Act and the relevant State Bank of Pakistan notification. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the recipient had established residence abroad, noting that a mere casual visit does not constitute residence. The Court emphasized that 'residence' requires an animus manendi—an intention to stay for a period. Furthermore, the Court ruled that as a penal statute, the Act must be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused. Because the prosecution relied on assumptions rather than proving the essential ingredients of the offense, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court affirming that administrative notifications cannot expand the scope of penal provisions beyond the statute's authority.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes 'residence' for the purposes of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947?
  • Must the prosecution prove the essential ingredients of an offense under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947 rather than relying on assumptions?
  • How should penal statutes be interpreted when there is ambiguity regarding the scope of an offense?
  • Can an administrative notification issued by the State Bank of Pakistan expand the scope of a penal statute beyond its original authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1973 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-09
  auction disputelegal representativesdeceased respondentnull and void proceedingspreliminary objectionsettlement proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a dispute over the auction of two adjacent garages, initially purchased separately by the deceased respondent and the appellant at an open auction. After concurrent findings by the Settlement authorities and the High Court against the appellant, leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the case, as a preliminary objection was raised establishing that the respondent had passed away during the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, and his legal representatives were not brought on record in a timely manner. The Court held that all proceedings conducted against a deceased party without bringing their legal representatives on record are null and void. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings conducted against a dead person without bringing legal representatives on record null and void?
  • Whether an appeal can be dismissed on a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of proceedings against a deceased party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha1973 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-06-01
  displaced personstransfer of propertyconstructive possessionallotment ordersettlement authoritiesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of two shops under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner sought the transfer of a shop based on an allotment order, claiming possession. Settlement authorities, however, found that neither the petitioner nor his son were in possession of the property immediately before the prescribed date of 20th December 1958, leading to the cancellation of the transfer. The petitioner contended that possession under the Act included constructive possession through a tenant and that the authorities failed to properly assess the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities had reached a clear, evidence-based finding of fact regarding the lack of possession. The Court affirmed that 'possession' under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, does not include constructive possession through a tenant. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'possession' under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include constructive possession through a tenant?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by Settlement authorities regarding possession of property?
  • Does a notice issued under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 establish entitlement to the transfer of a property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Muhammad Sapdar Khan and Another1973 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-01-08
  private defencedying declarationincomplete statementballistics expertappreciation of evidencemutual fightacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had acquitted the respondents of murder and rioting charges under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents had ambushed and shot the deceased following political rivalry and a physical altercation. The High Court, however, found the prosecution's version improbable, noting that the accused side had sustained far more numerous and serious injuries than the complainant party, and concluded that the accused acted in self-defence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, while disagreeing with some of the High Court's findings regarding the investigation and the recovery of the weapon, held that an incomplete dying declaration is inadmissible in evidence. It further ruled that where both parties suppress the truth, the court must carefully sift the evidence. Given the extensive injuries on the accused, the Supreme Court affirmed that the respondent had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and acted within his right of private defence. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration that is incomplete on its face admissible in evidence?
  • How should a court approach a criminal case where both the prosecution and the defence have suppressed the truth regarding the origin of the fight?
  • Can the right of private defence be successfully pleaded if the accused fired a lethal weapon resulting in death, where the accused party sustained far more numerous and serious injuries than the complainant party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1973 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-05
  misjoinder of accusedseparate transactionsillegal gratificationprevention of corruptionjoint trialcurable irregularityquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had reduced the appellant's sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment to six months' rigorous imprisonment under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947 (Prevention of Corruption Act). The core legal question was whether there was any connection between the incident of the preceding day regarding the alleged bribery and the subsequent trap incident on the next day, and whether the joint trial vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the two incidents constituted separate transactions, that the case was not covered by section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or section 6 of the Evidence Act 1872, and that the joint trial seriously prejudiced the appellant, which irregularity was incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed and the conviction set aside, while leaving it open for a separate trial or disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether two separate incidents occurring on different days can be treated as part of the same transaction for the purpose of a joint trial?
  • Does a misjoinder of accused persons cause serious prejudice not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are distinct transactions involving separate demands of bribe covered under section 6 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Thari vs Mohammad and 2 Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-07-04
  cheating by personationfabricating false evidencemutation proceedingsspecial judge jurisdictioncriminal appealPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan acquitting the first two respondents of an offence under Section 419 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a fraudulent land mutation. The core legal question concerns whether procuring personation before a revenue officer in mutation proceedings constitutes the offence of cheating under Section 415 and 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the revenue officer suffers no personal harm or loss. The Supreme Court held that since no direct deception was practiced on the true owner and the revenue officer suffered no bodily, mental, pecuniary, or reputational harm, the offence of cheating is not made out under the restrictive wording of Section 415. However, invoking the overriding powers under Section 6(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1958, the Court altered the conviction to one for fabricating false evidence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where an accused brings into existence false circumstances before a public servant in non-judicial proceedings to influence an erroneous opinion, it amounts to fabricating false evidence, though legislative amendment is urgently required to cure the narrow definition of cheating under Section 415.

  Questions settled

  • Does procuring personation before a revenue officer during mutation proceedings constitute cheating under Section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the revenue officer suffers no personal harm?
  • Can a Special Judge convict an accused of an offence not specifically mentioned in the Schedule to the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1958?
  • Whether the provisions of Sections 237 and 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the powers of a Special Judge under Section 6(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1958?
  • Is a complaint in writing from a revenue officer required under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for taking cognizance of fabricating false evidence committed in mutation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafiqan vs Suba Khan and 2 Other1973 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-07
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationmurderspeaking orderremandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged an order of the Lahore High Court confirming pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were accused of the murder of the appellant's husband. The core legal question was whether bail was granted to the respondents on sound judicial principles. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply its mind properly to the facts and issued a non-speaking order that provided no reasons for confirming the bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The key principle laid down is that an order granting or confirming bail must be a speaking order supported by proper judicial reasoning addressing the facts of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order granting or confirming bail must be a speaking order containing reasons?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a bail order that fails to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahi Bi vs Khalid Hussain and 6 Other1973 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-09
  habeas corpussection 491 CrPCsui juris womancustody of adult wiferestitution of conjugal rightsillegal detentionfreedom of movement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the High Court passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the High Court handed over the custody of an adult woman (sui juris) to her husband against her express wishes and provided police assistance for that purpose. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a court exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can compel an adult woman to accompany or live with her husband contrary to her desires. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Islamic law and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a sui juris woman cannot be forced to live with her husband against her will. The Court ruled that when an adult detenu is unwilling to go with her husband, the only jurisdiction the court possesses is to set her at liberty and allow her to move freely.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 compel an adult sui juris woman to live with or accompany her husband against her wishes?
  • What is the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an adult detenu is produced before it?
  • Whether allegations that an adult woman might lead an immoral life justify denying her liberty under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najabun Nisa and Others vs Muhammad Yasin and Other1973 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-06
  evacuee propertylimited ownerinheritance mutationconstitutional petitionallotment of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural lands allotted to Mst. Janatun Nisa as an evacuee property owner, who passed away on 12th January 1963. The core legal question concerned whether Mst. Janatun Nisa held the lands as a full owner or a limited owner, and whether mutation proceedings could be examined by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which relied on the precedent in Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others, holding that the deceased's interest in the confirmed lands remained that of a limited owner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the restoration of the Assistant Commissioner's mutation order treating her as a limited owner, and noting that mutations that attained finality without appeal or revision could not be challenged for the first time in the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female allottee of evacuee land holds the property as a full owner or a limited owner?
  • Can a mutation order that attained finality without appeal or revision be challenged for the first time in the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrun Nisa Begum vs Secretary, Evacuee Trust Board and Other1973 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-01
  evacuee trust propertycharitable trusttestamentary trustcompensation poolspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the legal status of an urban property in Hyderabad claimed to be evacuee trust property. The core legal question is whether a charitable trust created by a will dated September 6, 1909, validly came into existence despite the failure to execute a conditional direction to sell a portion of the property. The Supreme Court held that the trust was validly established and not contingent upon the partial sale of the property, thus confirming the property's status as evacuee trust property outside the compensation pool. The key principle laid down is that the failure to fulfill a subsidiary directive in a testamentary trust does not invalidate the primary charitable trust once it has legally come into existence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charitable trust created by a will fails if a subsidiary direction concerning a portion of the property is not executed?
  • Does evacuee trust property form part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam Bibi vs Mohammad Ibrahim and Another1973SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-05-21
  evacuee propertydisplaced persondelegated powersrevisional jurisdictionsettlement commissionertransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute concerning the transfer of evacuee property between a non-claimant displaced person and a claimant. The property was initially transferred to the appellant by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, but through successive appellate and revisional proceedings, the Settlement Commissioner eventually transferred the whole house to the respondent on the ground that it was too small to divide and the respondent had a preferential right as a claimant. A writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal challenging this order were dismissed by the High Court. Leave was granted to examine whether the Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise an order regarding the divisibility of premises passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner exercising delegated powers. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to the amendment of section 31(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1965, and the validating provisions therein, orders passed under delegated powers were subject to appeal and revision, rendering the Settlement Commissioner's revision competent. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Settlement Authority in exercise of delegated powers from the Chief Settlement Commissioner is subject to appeal and revision?
  • What is the effect of the amendment introduced by the Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1965 on orders passed under delegated powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahmooda Begum vs Mst. Mahmooda Jan1973 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-17
  ejectmenturban rent restrictiondeposit of rentfirst date of hearingframing of issuespersonal requirementjurisdiction of rent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, though this order was passed after the framing of issues. The tenant challenged the order through an appeal and a second appeal, both of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the deposit provision applies to ejectment petitions based on personal requirement rather than default, and whether the Rent Controller loses jurisdiction to order the deposit of rent if not done before framing issues. The Court held that section 13(6) applies to all proceedings under section 13, including those for personal requirement, and that the Rent Controller's omission to pass the order before framing issues does not divest him of jurisdiction to rectify the procedural defect subsequently, as the provision is intended for the landlord's benefit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding the deposit of rent apply to ejectment proceedings initiated on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Does a Rent Controller lose jurisdiction to direct a tenant to deposit arrears and future rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 if the order is not passed before the framing of issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha1973 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-10
  displaced persons land settlementsuo motu revisionlimitation periodallotment of landmutation of inheritancedeceased right-holderexcess area
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition against an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The dispute relates to agricultural land allotments following the death of the original refugee right-holder, Mst. Rashidan, prior to allotment. Her successors, including the appellant Mst. Khurshid Begum, obtained separate allotments based on mutation of inheritance. A respondent applied to cancel the allotments and later sought revision against an order permitting the appellant to retain an excess area upon payment of price. The Settlement Commissioner reopened past allotments made years prior, holding they should have been made jointly in the name of the deceased right-holder first. The core legal questions concern the legality of reopening final allotment orders through suo motu revision beyond limitation and the proper procedure for allocating land to successors of a deceased refugee right-holder. The Supreme Court held that final allotments cannot be reopened beyond the statutory limitation period and that the Rehabilitation Scheme contemplates allotments directly to successors individually according to their shares rather than to a deceased person. The appeal is allowed and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether past allotment orders that have attained finality under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 can be reopened in suo motu revision beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Does the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme contemplate making land allotments in the name of a deceased right-holder prior to mutation in favour of successors?
  • Can a revisional authority set aside previous final allotments when the revision petition is strictly confined to challenging a subsequent order regarding the retention of an excess area?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Fatima vs Settlement Commissioner (with the Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad Division) and 4 Other'1973 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-09-07
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertysettlement schemeearmarking of housesdivisibility of houseentitlementSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises out of a property dispute concerning the transfer of an evacuee house under settlement laws. The core legal questions involve determining the exact portion of the disputed building transferred to the respondent via settlement documents, whether the appellant was legally precluded from seeking transfer of the portion in her possession due to prior participation in an earmarking scheme, and the validity of the transfer of the appellant's portion to another party without notice. The Supreme Court held that the portion in the appellant's possession was never legally transferred to the respondent, that the appellant had validly abandoned her application under the earmarking scheme before participating in the draw, and that the administrative orders transferring her portion were issued without legal authority. The Court laid down that a claimant's choice to abandon an earmarking application in favor of a settlement form is permissible where no drawing of lots has occurred, and that the arbitrary denial of a divisible residential unit to a long-standing occupant is contrary to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing an application under the earmarking scheme irrevocably precludes a claimant from subsequently filing a C H form for the property in their possession?
  • Does a settlement authority have the legal authority to include a portion of a building in a P.T.O. issued to another party without notice to the actual occupant in possession?
  • What constitutes a separate residential unit capable of division under section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Abdul Ghani and Another1973SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertyallotment orderseniority of allotteedirect claimantindirect claimantsettlement operationsunauthorised possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property between two claimants, the petitioner (wife of an allottee) and the respondent. The core legal questions were whether an allotment order relates back to the date of original possession for the purpose of determining seniority, and whether the wife of an allottee qualifies as a direct claimant or an indirect claimant under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that where a claim is based on an allotment order, the date of that order determines seniority, and it does not relate back to the date of original possession. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a wife occupying premises through her husband is not in occupation in her own right but as a licensee; thus, she is an indirect claimant. The Court concluded that the Central Government notification granting rights to spouses applies only to spouses of 'authorised occupants' (allottees). Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that seniority for direct claimants is fixed by the date of the allotment order, not the date of initial possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allotment order for evacuee property relate back to the date of original possession for the purpose of determining seniority?
  • Is the wife of an allottee considered a direct claimant or an indirect claimant under settlement laws?
  • Does the Central Government notification regarding spouses of authorised occupants apply to spouses of persons in unauthorised possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Fatima and Ormas vs Saadullah Khan and Other1973 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-17
  res judicatainheritancecustomary lawmutationdeclaratory suitproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment modifying the inheritance shares of the petitioners, Mst. Bibi Fatima and Mst. Anwar Bibi, in the estate of one Akbar Khan, who died in 1911. The dispute involved complex historical mutations of property among the deceased's widows, daughters, and brother, governed by custom. The core legal question was whether the determination of shares in a previous declaratory suit (Suit No. 96 of 1953) between the same parties regarding the same subject matter precluded the re-litigation of those shares in the present proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that counsel for the petitioners had conceded that the judgment in the 1953 suit operated as res judicata. Consequently, the Court held that the parties were bound by the previous adjudication of their respective shares. The Court affirmed that where parties have previously litigated the same issue of inheritance shares, the principle of res judicata applies, barring further dispute on the matter. Finding no question of law of general public importance, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous judgment in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance shares operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation between the same parties?
  • Can a party challenge the determination of inheritance shares on appeal when their counsel has conceded that the issue was settled by a prior judgment between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Begum Bibi and Another vs Mst. Gohran and Another1973 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-19
  customary lawlife estatewidow alienationgift of propertydeclaratory suitinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a civil dispute regarding the alienation of land by a widow who inherited a life estate under custom. Shera died in 1946 leaving property mutated in the names of his widows as a life estate. One widow gifted the land to her eldest daughter, excluding her other two daughters, who subsequently filed a declaratory suit challenging the alienation. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate and revisional courts affirmed the decision. The core legal question was whether the widow was competent under Customary Law to make the disputed gift. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the relevant Customary Law of Gujrat District, a widow holding a life estate cannot alienate the property by gift unless she is advanced in years with no likelihood of remarriage and the transfer is made to eligible persons, conditions which were not met in this case. The key principle laid down is that a widow's power to alienate her husband's property by gift under custom is strictly circumscribed by specific conditions regarding her age and the identity of the transferee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow holding a life estate under customary law is competent to alienate her husband's property by deed of gift?
  • What are the conditions under which a widow can alienate property by gift according to the Riwaj-i-Am of Gujrat District?
  • Can a widow transfer property by gift to any of her daughters when the custom restricts such transfers to specific persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashir Bibi vs Aminuddin and 9 Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-11-06
  summoning of witnessesproduction of evidenceadministration suitcivil procedurecoercive processwitness attendance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of an order passed in a pending administration suit regarding the production of evidence by the appellant. The trial court directed the appellant to serve two witnesses on her own responsibility as a last opportunity, and subsequently refused to summon them through court process when service failed. The appellant's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court, though it granted a final opportunity for self-production. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether there is any sanction in law for directing a party to produce its evidence on its own responsibility under pain of having it shut out. The Supreme Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize forcing a party to produce witnesses at its own peril or refusing court processes for summoning witnesses, especially when a witness had been previously bound down by the court. The Court ruled that the trial court must utilize its coercive machinery to procure the attendance of material witnesses, and allowed the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is there any sanction in law under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for placing the responsibility on a party to produce its evidence on pain of shutting it out?
  • Can a trial court refuse to issue court processes for summoning witnesses merely because a party failed to effect service through dasti summons?
  • What is the legal duty of a court when a witness who was previously bound down by the court fails to attend the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Babara and Others vs Abdul Akbar and Other1973 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-19
  specific performancereconveyance of landburden of proofexpert evidencethumb impressionappellate procedureconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed a decree for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey land. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court erred in refusing to allow the petitioners to introduce expert evidence for the comparison of thumb impressions on a disputed document, after failing to raise such a request during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the petitioners failed to seek the comparison of thumb impressions during the trial stage and did not file a formal application for such evidence in the first appellate court. Consequently, they could not claim a right to introduce expert evidence at the appellate stage. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court, establishing the principle that a party cannot seek to introduce new evidence or expert opinion on appeal when they failed to pursue such opportunities during the trial, especially in the absence of a formal application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce expert evidence for the comparison of thumb impressions at the appellate stage if they failed to request such evidence during the trial?
  • Does the failure to file a formal application for expert evidence in the first appellate court preclude a party from challenging the refusal of such evidence in a higher court?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact by the first appellate court and the High Court sufficient to deny leave to appeal in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Keays Byrne vs Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and 3 Other1973 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1963-03-19
  displaced personevacuee propertysettlement authoritiesspecial leave to appealwrit petitionfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal by the High Court, which upheld the refusal of settlement authorities to transfer certain evacuee premises in Rawalpindi to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a "displaced person" under Section 2(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, given that she had operated a seasonal hotel business in Kashmir before partitioning and claimed displacement due to circumstances arising from partition and military requisitioning in India. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities and the High Court established that she was a permanent resident of Rawalpindi and did not leave her residence in Kashmir on account of civil disturbances, nor was she unable to manage her affairs in India as contemplated by the law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding status under statutory definitions are not to be disturbed unless shown to be legally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who leaves a seasonal business premises in Kashmir under normal circumstances rather than due to civil disturbances qualifies as a displaced person?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's status as a displaced person be assailed in writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the holder of a British Passport with unrestricted travel to India can claim inability to manage property in India for the purposes of qualifying as a displaced person?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Yaqub vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and 5 Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-28
  composite buildinghorizontal divisionsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertyevacuee propertyDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958constitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, specifically regarding the rights to the roofs of shops in a composite building. The core legal question was whether, in a case of horizontal division of a composite property, the rights of a transferee of a lower tenement (ground floor shops) extend beyond the line of division to the roofs, or if such rights are strictly limited by the demarcation specified by the Settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that in composite buildings, Settlement authorities possess the power to specify parts as residential or business units, and rights of transferees are strictly confined to the specific division or demarcation ordered. The Court ruled that the appellate and revisional authorities acted arbitrarily by ignoring the initial valid division, which included the roofs as part of the residential portion. The key principle laid down is that in horizontal divisions, the rights of a transferee do not extend beyond the line or level of division specified by the competent authority, and any such division must be exercised judiciously rather than arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of a transferee of a lower tenement in a composite building extend beyond the line of division specified by the Settlement authorities?
  • Do Settlement authorities have the power to divide a composite building horizontally into residential and business units?
  • Can Settlement authorities arbitrarily alter a valid division of property without proper justification or finding?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sharif and Others vs Muhammad Amin and Other1973 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-09
  leave to appealwrit petitionlachesevacuee propertyreference to custodianjurisdiction of custodiancivil court suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition in limine on the grounds of laches and conduct. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property to determine the question of possession while deciding a reference made by a civil court under Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, regarding evacuee interest in the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that there was no substance in the contention that the Custodian lacked jurisdiction to go into the question of possession, particularly when the petitioners failed to raise any grievance before the Custodian and the civil court was yet to adjudicate the matter upon return of the reference. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition, noting the inordinate delay and conduct of the petitioners, while clarifying that the petitioners remained at liberty to urge the point of possession before the civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property has jurisdiction to go into the question of possession while deciding a reference under Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed by the High Court on the ground of inordinate delay and laches?
  • Whether a party can challenge the findings of the Custodian regarding possession before the civil court when the reference is returned?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Aslam vs The State1973 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-17
  murderdeath sentenceocular evidencechance witnessesrelated witnessesrecoveriescriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Mohammad Aslam, under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of related and chance witnesses, and the corroborative value of recovery evidence in a murder trial. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of an interested or related eye-witness, when natural and reliable, combined with independent recovery evidence, is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction even if other witnesses are discarded. The key principle laid down is that the presence of related witnesses at the scene can be safely relied upon when corroborated by independent material evidence such as recoveries, warranting no interference with concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a related eye-witness alone sustain a conviction for murder when properly corroborated?
  • Whether the evidence of chance witnesses can be discarded without affecting the reliability of other natural eye-witnesses?
  • Does the corroboration of recovery evidence suffice to uphold a death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Alam vs Noor Mohammad1973 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-08-22
  rent restrictionevictiondefault in rentconcurrent findingsmixed question of law and facttenancy agreementwaiver of default
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction application filed by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment. The tenant admitted the default but argued that a practice of periodic rent payment had been established, supported by a single receipt showing a cumulative payment. While the Rent Controller and the District Judge initially accepted this plea, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings, holding that a solitary instance of delayed payment did not constitute a binding practice to vary the statutory time limits for rent payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the question of default was a mixed question of law and fact, allowing for interference with concurrent findings. The Court held that a tenant must prove a consistent practice to deviate from the contractual rent payment schedule. As the appellant failed to establish such a practice, the admitted default rendered him liable for eviction. The Court emphasized that while a landlord may condone a specific default, such condonation does not create a permanent waiver of future contractual obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding rent default?
  • Does a single instance of delayed rent payment constitute a 'practice' sufficient to override the statutory or contractual time for payment?
  • Can a landlord's acceptance of delayed rent on one occasion be construed as a permanent waiver of the contractual payment schedule?
  • Is the question of whether a default occurred under the Rent Restriction Ordinance a mixed question of law and fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan and Others Mahmood Akhtar Ghumman and Another vs The State Mian Khan Etc.S1973 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs T. K. Brothers & Co. vs The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Karachi and Another1973 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1958-01-31
  evacuee propertyrent restrictionunauthorized occupationcustodian of evacuee propertyrehabilitation authorityevictioncompensation for construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the eviction of the appellants from plots of land in Karachi, which became 'evacuee' property following the migration of the original lessee. The appellants, who had constructed a factory on the premises, sought protection against eviction by invoking the Sind Rent Restriction Act. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Sind Rent Restriction Act could be invoked to prevent the eviction of occupants from property designated as 'evacuee' property. The Supreme Court held that the Sind Rent Restriction Act is inapplicable to evacuee property, as the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance and the Rehabilitation Ordinance, being central and later legislation, prevail over provincial rent control laws. The Court affirmed that the Custodian of Evacuee Property possesses the authority to evict unauthorized occupants. However, noting that the appellants had constructed a factory on the land, the Court remanded the matter to the Custodian to determine the appellants' potential entitlement to compensation for these constructions, while maintaining the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sind Rent Restriction Act apply to evacuee property?
  • Does the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance prevail over the Sind Rent Restriction Act in cases of conflict?
  • Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property evict an occupant from evacuee property without regard to rent control laws?
  • Is an occupant of evacuee property entitled to compensation for constructions made on the land upon eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs T. K. Brothers & Co. vs The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Karachi and 3 Other1973 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1958-05-19
  evacuee propertypartnership lawouster of jurisdictionwrit jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionallotment of propertycustodian of evacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the legality of the Custodian of Evacuee Property’s order declaring a share in a partnership firm as evacuee property and subsequently allotting it to refugees. The appellants challenged the order, arguing the partnership had dissolved and that a partnership is a personal relationship, not property subject to unilateral substitution of partners. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the appellants to a civil court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred because statutory provisions explicitly ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine whether property is evacuee property. Consequently, the High Court was obligated to adjudicate the merits. The Court held that while a partner's interest in a firm constitutes property, the Custodian cannot simply substitute himself as a partner without assuming the attendant liabilities, such as capital contributions and losses. The case was remanded to the Custodian to determine the existence of the partnership at the relevant time and to reconsider the allotment in light of the legal liabilities inherent in partnership status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine whether property is evacuee property?
  • Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property substitute himself as a partner in a firm without assuming the liabilities of that partnership?
  • Is a partner's interest in a partnership firm considered property for the purposes of evacuee property laws?
  • Should a High Court dismiss a constitutional petition on the ground of an alternative remedy when the civil court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rafiq Ahmad vs The Province of Sind through the Secretary, Housing, Planning & Local Government Department, Sind and 3 Other1973 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-01
  municipal contracttender processcontrolling authoritywrit petitioncontractor eligibilityadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which set aside the decision of a Controlling Authority to award a municipal contract to the petitioner. The Karachi Municipal Corporation had invited tenders for construction work, and respondent No. 4 submitted the lowest bid, which was recommended by the Corporation. However, the Controlling Authority bypassed this recommendation and awarded the contract to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Controlling Authority possessed the power to unilaterally approve a tender that had not been recommended by the Municipal Corporation under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Controlling Authority lacked the competence to bypass the Municipal Corporation's recommendation process. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that a Controlling Authority must adhere to the procedural requirements of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Contracts) Rules, 1960, and cannot arbitrarily override the recommendations of the Municipal Corporation regarding the awarding of contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Controlling Authority have the power to unilaterally approve a tender that has not been recommended by the Municipal Corporation?
  • Is a contractor who submitted the lowest bid an aggrieved party entitled to challenge the award of a contract to another party?
  • Can a Controlling Authority bypass the established procedural rules for awarding municipal contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nabi Bakhshi& Sons vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Natural Resources (Industries Division), Islamabad1973 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-22
  limitationspecial leave to appealarbitration awardgovernment contractdamagescancellation of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which dismissed appeals arising from an arbitration award regarding the cancellation of a government contract for the supply of helicopters. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal after pursuing a certificate under the Civil Procedure Code, and whether damages for cancellation of foreign agencies could form the subject-matter of reference to arbitration and be sustained without supporting evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time as the time spent seeking a certificate to appeal was unnecessary, and the delay from December 1972 to January 1973 remained unexplained. Furthermore, the Court held on merits that there was no evidence supporting the claim for damages for cancellation of agencies, and such claims could not be the subject-matter of reference to the umpire. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time taken in applying for a certificate to file an appeal to the Supreme Court under the Code of Civil Procedure can be excluded when computing the period of limitation for a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Can a claim for damages regarding the cancellation of foreign agencies be the subject-matter of reference to arbitration under a government supply contract?
  • Whether an arbitration award granting damages without supporting evidence can be maintained?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khalid Rifat Transport Co., and 2 Others vs Commerce Bank1973 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-08-22
  leave to defendsummary suitpromissory noteconditional leaveset-offdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which granted them conditional leave to defend a summary suit for the recovery of a balance amount due on a promissory note under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring them to furnish security for the entire claimed amount. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting conditional leave to defend rather than unconditional leave, given that the petitioners had filed a cross-suit for damages and accounts against the respondent-Bank and its nominee for alleged mismanagement. The Supreme Court held that since the execution and consideration of the promissory note were admitted, the petitioners could not claim a set-off based on their separate damages suit, and the trial court's discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend was properly exercised. The key principle laid down is that the grant of conditional or unconditional leave to defend a summary suit falls within the discretionary domain of the court, and mere pendency of a cross-suit for damages does not automatically entitle a defendant to unconditional leave where the execution and consideration of the instrument are undisputed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary suit when a cross-suit for damages against the plaintiff is pending?
  • Is the grant of conditional or unconditional leave to defend under summary procedure a matter of discretion for the trial court?
  • Can a defendant claim a set-off against an admitted promissory note on the basis of alleged mismanagement by the plaintiff's nominee?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gul Ahmad Textile Mill Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan Ihrough the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Welfare, Karachi and 2 Other1973 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1961-06-08
  industrial disputebonus awarddepreciationnet profitswrit of certiorariSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a decision of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi in a writ matter concerning an industrial tribunal's award of a bonus to workers for the year 1955. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Tribunal was competent to award a bonus despite the company's claimed financial loss and substantial depreciation deductions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Tribunal's award was vitiated by a clear error on the face of the record, as a proper calculation—accounting for minimum allowable depreciation and shareholders' minimum entitlements—revealed that the company had no net profits remaining out of which a bonus could lawfully be awarded. The key principle laid down is that an industrial tribunal cannot arbitrarily disallow legitimate depreciation and minimum returns when determining the availability of surplus profits for the distribution of a bonus to workers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Industrial Tribunal can award a bonus to workers without first determining if there are surplus net profits available after legitimate deductions for depreciation and shareholders' entitlements?
  • Does an award of a bonus by an Industrial Tribunal based on an arbitrary rejection of a company's depreciation calculations constitute an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Is it necessary to account for minimum depreciation and shareholders' returns when calculating profits available for the distribution of a bonus in an industrial dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghaffur Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Workers Union (Represented by Karachi Textile Labour Union)1973 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1961-06-08
  industrial disputebonus calculationhouse rent allowancewrongful dismissalreinstatementmaster and servantarbitration award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between Messrs Ghaffur Textile Mills Ltd. and its Workers' Union regarding bonus payments, house rent allowances, and the reinstatement of 64 discharged workers. The Industrial Tribunal had awarded increased bonuses, house rent allowances, and reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in calculating the bonus by failing to deduct income tax and dividends as prior charges from the gross profit. Regarding house rent, the Court found the Tribunal's award unjustified as the Union failed to rebut the Management's evidence that workers lived within one mile of the mill. Concerning the discharged workers, the Court ruled that the Tribunal improperly ignored a binding arbitration award concerning 32 workers and failed to apply the general law of master and servant to the others. The Court established that in industrial disputes, net profit calculations for bonus purposes must account for statutory liabilities like income tax, and that reinstatement is not the automatic remedy for wrongful dismissal where termination is otherwise permissible under contract law.

  Questions settled

  • Must income tax and dividends be deducted from gross profit when calculating available surplus for worker bonuses?
  • Does an Industrial Tribunal have the authority to award house rent allowance without evidence of necessity or that such allowance is not already included in basic wages?
  • Is reinstatement the appropriate remedy for workers dismissed without proper procedure if their employment was otherwise terminable on notice?
  • Can an Industrial Tribunal ignore a prior binding arbitration award regarding the dismissal of workers?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amin Agencies Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Food1973 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-03-15
  arbitration awardapprobation and reprobationwaiver of objectionarbitration agreementenforcement of awardcontract validityjurisdiction of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an arbitration award dispute between the Federation of Pakistan and Messrs Amin Agencies Limited. The central legal question was whether a party, having expressly waived objections to the validity of an arbitration agreement and submitted to the arbitrator's jurisdiction, could subsequently challenge the contract's validity during proceedings to enforce the award. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not "blow hot and cold" by taking inconsistent positions. Having explicitly renounced their right to challenge the arbitration agreement under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, and having participated in the arbitration, the appellant was precluded from raising the plea that the underlying contract was void at the enforcement stage. The Court emphasized that once a party submits to an arbitrator's jurisdiction and waives objections, they are bound by that stance throughout the proceedings. The principle established is that the doctrine of "approbation and reprobation" bars a party from challenging the validity of an arbitration agreement in court if they have previously and unequivocally waived such objections during the arbitration process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge the validity of an arbitration agreement after expressly waiving such objections and submitting to the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
  • Does the doctrine of approbation and reprobation prevent a party from raising inconsistent pleas during arbitration enforcement proceedings?
  • Are the powers of a court under sections 15, 16, and 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 limited to the enforcement of an award rather than determining the initial validity of the arbitration agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aj Bag Corporation vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 3 Other1973 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-08
  arbitrationrevocation of arbitrator's authoritynecessary partyspecial leave petitionarbitration proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan revoking the authority of an arbitrator appointed under an agreement between the parties. The High Court had acted upon an application under sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act 1940, filed on behalf of Pakistan, seeking the removal of the arbitrator on the ground that the Pakistan State was a necessary party but had not been impleaded either before the court or the arbitrator. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the Government was a necessary party and sought time to implead it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entirely correct in its view, as arbitration proceedings conducted in the absence of a necessary party lack legal sanction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the termination of the arbitrator's authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether arbitration proceedings conducted in the absence of a necessary party lack legal sanction?
  • Can the authority of an arbitrator be revoked if a necessary party was not impleaded in the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs A. Z. Company, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan and Anothhr S1973 PLD Supreme Court 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  arbitration awardbreach of contractmeasure of damagesloss of profitsconcluded contractumpire jurisdictionsupply tender
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, which had set aside an arbitration award made a rule of the court in a dispute concerning the cancellation of contracts for the supply of lubricant oil. The core legal questions involved whether a valid and concluded contract existed between the parties, whether the government committed a breach, and the appropriate measure of damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872. The Supreme Court held that valid and binding contracts did exist, that the government had committed the breach, and that the loss of profits claimed by the appellant was a direct and natural consequence of the breach recoverable under Section 73, whereas speculative damages for goodwill were remote. The court laid down the principle that in commercial contracts involving foreign imports, loss of profits reasonably expected to be earned represents a fair measure of compensation for breach, and that an umpire appointed upon disagreement between arbitrators before a partial award has jurisdiction to decide the entire reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acceptance of a tender with a specific delivery date varying from the original tender period constitutes a valid and concluded contract?
  • Is loss of profits considered a direct and natural consequence of a breach of contract under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 in commercial import transactions?
  • What is the scope of jurisdiction of an umpire when arbitrators refer a matter to him upon a disagreement without making a partial award?
  • Can damages for injury to goodwill and general business reputation be awarded as a consequence of withholding payments on unrelated contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs The State1973 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-28
  kidnappingminorlawful custodysexual offencecriminal appealstatutory interpretationevidence appraisal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction of a 16-year-old appellant for the offence of kidnapping a minor under section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant's actions, specifically luring a six-year-old girl from her father's custody to a deserted house for sexual purposes, satisfied the ingredients of the offence under section 364-A, and whether the conviction could be sustained despite the delay in reporting the incident to the police. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, rejecting the argument that the evidence was unreliable due to the delay in reporting or the alleged enmity of witnesses. The Court affirmed that the girl remained in the lawful custody of her father while playing, and that custody was terminated the moment she was induced to accompany the appellant for the purpose of satisfying his lust. The principle laid down is that luring a minor from the lawful custody of a guardian for the purpose of sexual abuse constitutes the offence of kidnapping under section 364-A, regardless of whether the sexual act was successfully completed.

  Questions settled

  • Does luring a minor from the custody of a guardian for the purpose of sexual gratification constitute an offence under section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for kidnapping be sustained where there is a delay in reporting the incident to the police?
  • Is the testimony of a child witness who is deemed incompetent under section 118 of the Evidence Act 1872 necessary for a conviction if other evidence is sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sarwar Khan vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 41973 PLD Supreme Court 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-08
  settlementallotteelocalarrears of rentproperty divisionvaluation limitdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of a residential property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The appellant, a local and an authorized allottee in possession of a portion of the house, had his transfer form rejected by the Settlement authorities on the grounds that he had not cleared outstanding rent arrears and that the total valuation of the undivided house exceeded Rs. 10,000. The High Court dismissed the appellant's Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory condition requiring the clearance of rent arrears prior to transfer applies only to occupants who are not in possession under an order of a competent authority, whereas authorized allottees are exempt from such pre-conditions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while properties generally cannot be divided to bring them under the statutory valuation limit for locals, an exception applies where a division into independent units existed prior to Partition. The Court directed the transfer of the appellant's portion to him.

  Questions settled

  • Are authorized allottees in possession of evacuee property required to clear outstanding rent arrears as a pre-condition for the transfer of the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can an evacuee house valued at more than Rs. 10,000 be divided for the purpose of transferring a portion to a local if the division into independent units existed prior to Partition?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Rashid Akhtar and Another vs Settlement Commissioner and Other1973 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-16
  property transfersettlement commissionerdue processmiscellaneous applicationremandagreement of associationadministrative jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave challenged a Lahore High Court order that remanded a property dispute to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh determination. The core legal question concerned the validity of an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which set aside a property transfer in favor of the petitioners via a miscellaneous application without notice, despite a pending appeal that was subsequently withdrawn. The High Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter through such an application after the appeal’s withdrawal and that the initial transfer was procedurally flawed due to a failure to properly examine competing agreements of association. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no point of law of public importance to warrant interference. The holding establishes that administrative authorities must provide notice and adhere to due process when adjudicating property rights; they cannot circumvent formal appellate procedures by deciding substantive disputes through miscellaneous applications, and a remand is necessary where authorities fail to properly examine competing claims or evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Additional Settlement Commissioner decide a property dispute through a miscellaneous application after the relevant appeal has been withdrawn?
  • Is a property transfer order valid if the authority failed to examine and confront parties with competing agreements of association?
  • Does the withdrawal of an appeal divest an administrative authority of jurisdiction to pass orders on the subject matter of that appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz and Another vs The District Council, Sheikhupura and Other1973 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-29
  temporary injunctioncattle fairdistrict councilcivil suitmarket control
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which accepted a revision application by the District Council, Sheikhupura, and restored a Civil Judge's order dismissing an application for a temporary injunction filed by the appellants. The appellants operate as Commission Agents and hold a monthly cattle market on leasehold land in Mor Khunda. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants were entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the District Council from interfering with their business during the District Council's cattle fairs. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of an earlier interim direction, allowing the appeal partially. The Court held that while the appellants were free to conduct their business according to law on their leasehold land, they were restrained from carrying on such business within a radius of half a mile from the District Council's cattle fair on the 28th, 29th, and 30th of each month, and the District Council was restrained from interfering otherwise. The key principle laid down is that competing private cattle markets may be temporarily regulated in proximity to authorized local authority cattle fairs to prevent conflict during fair dates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain a statutory District Council from interfering with a private cattle market?
  • Can private business operations be restricted within a specific radius during the holding of authorized District Council cattle fairs?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj. Mehtab Khan Noor Muhammad vs The Rehabilitation Authority1973 PLD Supreme Court 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-11
  evacuee propertycustodian jurisdictionconfirmation of saledisplaced persons land settlementcompensation poolvesting of propertystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses civil appeals arising from the dismissal of applications for the confirmation of land sales executed by evacuees in favour of the appellants prior to independence in 1947. The core legal questions involve whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property retained jurisdiction to confirm sales under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 after the subject lands were validly acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, and the effect of such acquisition on evacuee properties. The Supreme Court held that once evacuee agricultural land is acquired by notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the rights of the evacuee stand extinguished, the property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances, and it ceases to be evacuee property, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property to entertain applications for confirmation of sales. The Court laid down that while the Custodian retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine the true evacuee or non-evacuee character of a property at the time of the acquisition notification, once a property is established as evacuee and validly acquired into the compensation pool, the Custodian loses all authority to deal with it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property retain jurisdiction to confirm sales under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 after the subject land has been acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • What is the legal effect of an acquisition notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 on evacuee property?
  • Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property adjudicate upon the true evacuee or non-evacuee character of a property notwithstanding its inclusion in an acquisition notification?
  • Does the overriding provision in section 5 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 preclude the legislature from enacting subsequent laws that affect evacuee property jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hassan Ashraf vs Shakil Ahmad1973 SCMR 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-08-20
  promissory noteconsiderationburden of proofrebuttable presumptionsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court in a second appeal, which had reversed the District Judge's decision and restored the trial court's decree in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 based on a promissory note. The core legal question was whether the defendant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of consideration attaching to the promissory note and whether the plaintiff discharged the onus placed upon him regarding the actual advancement of the loan. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's own contradictory admissions, lack of supporting evidence, and surrounding circumstances established that no consideration passed at the execution of the promissory note, and the plaintiff failed to prove the advancement of any prior loans. The Court laid down the principle that while the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, where a plaintiff undertakes the burden of proving consideration through issues framed at trial and fails to discharge it—and where the defendant successfully demonstrates the absence of consideration through the plaintiff's own statements and surrounding circumstances—the suit must be dismissed, and findings of fact by the first appellate court should not be interfered with in second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the presumption of consideration arising under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act a rebuttable one?
  • Can a plaintiff's own contradictory statements and admissions in cross-examination serve to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration?
  • Whether findings of fact regarding the absence of consideration recorded by a first appellate court can be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal when based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Ghulam Nabi vs Government of Punjab through the Secretary, S 8T1973 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-21
  leave without paypauper petitioncourt-feewrit jurisdictionadministrative sideHigh Court establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave on medical grounds, which was granted without pay by respondent No. 2 with a direction to appear personally before the Registrar for future medical leave applications. The petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed as incompetent under rule 24 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, and the Chief Justice subsequently upheld the order, noting that leave is not a right. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court in forma pauperis, which was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner was not a pauper and that no writ lies against the High Court in respect of an administrative order. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner qualified as a pauper and whether a writ petition is maintainable against the High Court's administrative orders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court gave cogent reasons for finding the petitioner was not a pauper and that the High Court was fully justified in holding that no writ lies against it. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave is a vested right of an employee?
  • Whether a writ petition lies against the High Court in respect of an order passed on the administrative side?
  • How is the status of a pauper determined for the purpose of paying court-fees?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Ghani vs M. A. Mullick & Brother and 3 Other1973 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-16
  writ jurisdictiondue processevictionsapurdarLetters Patent AppealpossessionMartial Law Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, thereby upholding a decision declaring the actions of a sapurdar and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns whether authorities, acting under Martial Law Order No. 241, could lawfully seize and hand over possession of premises to an auction-purchaser while a tenant remained in possession without having been evicted through due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the actions of the sapurdar and the Assistant Registrar were illegal, as the tenant retained a legal right to the premises until formally evicted by due process. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction to rectify flagrant illegalities, rejecting the argument that the writ was issued against a non-public functionary or that disputed facts precluded such relief. The key principle laid down is that possession of premises cannot be forcibly transferred by administrative action or private auction without following due process of law, regardless of the tenant's default status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be evicted from premises by administrative action without following due process of law?
  • Is the writ jurisdiction of the High Court appropriately exercised to correct flagrant illegalities involving the unauthorized seizure of property?
  • Does a tenant have a legal right to remain in possession of premises until formally evicted, even if they have defaulted on a compromise decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Ghulam Muhammad1973 SCMR 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-05
  pre-emptionpre-emptoramendment of plaintappellate stageconcurrent findings of factpiratical rightkhatedarpattidar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had originally filed the suit claiming a right of pre-emption based on his status as a joint khatedar. Following unsuccessful appeals, the petitioner attempted to introduce a new ground for pre-emption in the High Court, asserting he was a pattidar. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit can introduce a new basis for the claim at the appellate stage without amending the plaint, and whether the petitioner successfully established his right. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly disallowed the new ground, noting the petitioner failed to amend his plaint. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that pre-emption is a piratical right, requiring strict compliance with the law. Because the petitioner failed to prove his status as a khatedar and the matter was settled by concurrent findings of fact, the petition was dismissed. The key principle established is that a pre-emptor must strictly adhere to the grounds pleaded in the plaint and cannot shift the basis of the claim during appellate proceedings without formal amendment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit introduce a new ground for the claim at the appellate stage without amending the plaint?
  • Is a pre-emption right considered a piratical right requiring strict compliance with the law?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to dismiss a suit where the plaintiff fails to prove the specific status pleaded in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 Other1973 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-03
  delegation of powerspower of reviewsettlement lawsdisplaced personssuo motu reviewwrit petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which remanded a property dispute case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide a review matter. The underlying dispute concerned the transfer of a property under settlement laws to competing claimant displaced persons. The core legal questions involved whether a Settlement Commissioner validly exercised delegated power of review and the effect of the withdrawal of the power of review by subsequent legislation. The Supreme Court held that the notification delegating the power of review was unauthorized and conferred no jurisdiction, particularly as the power of review had already been taken away by Ordinance No. II of 1962 and the notification did not contemplate suo motu review without a pending review. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the quashment of the unauthorized review order but set aside the remand to the Chief Settlement Commissioner since the power of review was no longer available in law, while noting the appellant's remedy to seek restoration of his earlier dismissed writ petition. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notification delegating the Chief Settlement Commissioner's power of review confers valid jurisdiction when not published in the official Gazette?
  • Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise a power of review after the power has been withdrawn by legislative amendment?
  • Does a statement of intent by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to review an order suo motu constitute a pending review case saved by transitional provisions?
  • Is an order remanding a case for review legally sustainable when the statutory power of review has ceased to exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs M. A. A. Wasty, Settlement and Rehabili Tation1973 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-07
  settlement and rehabilitationtransfer of propertyconstitutional petitionextraordinary jurisdictionavailable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition concerning the disputed transfer of a shop in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, claiming to be a local and in possession, applied for its transfer via an N.C.H. Form, but the property was earlier transferred to a claimant respondent. After protracted litigation, including remands and writ petitions, the Settlement Commissioner finally held that the petitioner was a local and thus ineligible for transfer, and that the property was not available under Scheme No. VIII because the prior transfer to the respondent remained intact and uncanceled. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, upholding the findings of fact regarding the petitioner's status and the unavailability of the property. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court's findings on questions of fact and the availability of property under Scheme No. VIII were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact based on proper consideration of evidence cannot be interfered with in extraordinary jurisdiction, and property previously transferred and not resumed remains unavailable under subsequent schemes. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fact reached by a settlement authority on a proper consideration of evidence be interfered with in the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction?
  • Whether property previously transferred to a claimant and not resumed or cancelled can be treated as available property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Does a local applicant ineligible for transfer under settlement laws acquire a right to property transferred prior to the promulgation of Scheme No. VIII?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Qayyum vs MR. Justice Shamim Hussain Qadri and 6 Other1973 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-22
  settlement of propertypermanent transfer deedstatutory tenancycompromise decreeevictiondisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as an appeal concerning a property dispute between the appellant, Khawaja Abdul Qayyum, and respondents 1 to 4, involving conflicting claims over property transfer orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner. The parties reached a compromise agreement, which the Supreme Court incorporated into its order. The agreement modified the original transfer order, demarcating specific property portions for the appellant and respondents 1 to 4, with provisions for the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.) by the Settlement authorities. Additionally, the Court addressed the status of respondent No. 5, who claimed statutory tenancy. The Court held that respondent No. 5, residing abroad, and his licensees were not entitled to statutory tenancy or notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as they were not in personal occupation. Consequently, the Court directed them to vacate the premises within six months, failing which they would be liable for eviction and payment of rent arrears. The appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise and the Court's specific directions regarding the occupants.

  Questions settled

  • Are licensees of a tenant entitled to notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does a person residing abroad and not in personal occupation of a property qualify for statutory tenancy under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can the Supreme Court enforce a compromise agreement regarding property transfer and eviction of occupants?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak vs S. M. Ayub and 2 Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-26
  election petitiondisqualificationmanaging directorgovernment contractresignation effective datede facto directoroffice of profitSupreme Court jurisdictionadmissibility of evidenceconfrontation of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by special leave, challenged a High Court judgment upholding an Election Tribunal's decision to void the appellant's election to the National Assembly. The appellant was disqualified for allegedly being a Managing Director of a company with a subsisting government contract, under Article 9(2)(h) of the Legal Framework Order, 1970. The Supreme Court first affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, holding that Article 186 of the Interim Constitution, conferring appellate powers, is not controlled by Article 249 or sub-constitutional legislation like Section 64(3) of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Ordinance, 1970. The Court then held that the appellant's resignation from the directorship became effective on the date it was tendered (December 10, 1970), not the date of its formal acceptance (January 1, 1971), as per the company's Articles of Association and Section 86-I of the Companies Act. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence relied upon by the lower courts to establish the appellant's continued de facto directorship was inadmissible due to non-compliance with proof requirements and lack of confrontation. Even if de facto directorship were proven, the disqualification under Article 9(2)(h) LFO requires holding an "office of profit," which was not established. The appeal was allowed, and the election petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court entertain an appeal against a High Court decision in an election matter, despite a statutory bar in sub-constitutional legislation?
  • Does a director's resignation take effect from the date it is tendered to the company or the date of its formal acceptance by the Board of Directors?
  • Can a document be used as an admission against a party if that party was not confronted with it during cross-examination, especially when their testimony is inconsistent with the document's contents?
  • Is a de facto director, whose company has a subsisting government contract, disqualified under Article 9(2)(h) of the Legal Framework Order 1970 if they do not hold an 'office of profit'?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction when hearing an appeal from a High Court judgment in an election matter, particularly concerning findings of fact and law?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalique Ahmed vs Abdul Grant and Another1973 PLD Supreme Court 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-15
  leave to appealejectmentco-ownerstentative rent depositLetters Patent Appealstay of ejectmentlandlord and tenantstriking off defence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an interim order of the High Court which stayed his ejectment from leased premises subject to furnishing security for rent arrears and monthly deposits during a pending Letters Patent Appeal. The ejectment proceedings arose from non-payment of rent, where the Rent Controller ordered deposit of tentative rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner claimed that a question of title existed due to other co-owners not being joined. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was frivolous and without just grievance. The Court clarified that a single co-owner can validly maintain an ejectment application without joining other co-owners, unlike a suit for possession. Furthermore, as defence was struck off and an ejectment order passed due to non-compliance with the rent deposit order, the interim order merged into the final ejectment order, rendering the stay application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC improper.

  Questions settled

  • Can a single co-owner maintain an application for ejectment of a tenant without joining the other co-owners as parties?
  • Does an order for deposit of tentative rent under rent laws merge into a final ejectment order passed upon non-compliance?
  • Can a stay of ejectment under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted when the underlying ejectment order is not under appeal in that specific proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Khairati and 4 Other vs Aleem Ud Din and Another1973 PLD Supreme Court 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-05
  review petitionlimitationcross-objectionspecific performancemortgageappellate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The original suit was filed for specific performance of a contract or, alternatively, for a mortgage decree. The trial court found the transaction to be a mortgage, which the heirs of the transferor were entitled to redeem, but also held that the suit for specific performance was within time. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the District Judge decreed specific performance. The defendants' second appeal was dismissed, and their subsequent leave petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that they had failed to file a cross-objection in the first appellate court regarding limitation. In the review petition, the petitioners contended that the court overlooked the mandatory duty under section 3 of the Limitation Act, as well as the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22 and Order XLI, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that while an appellate court must examine limitation for the appeal itself, it is not required to re-examine a trial court's finding that a suit is within time when the respondent has failed to file an appeal or cross-objection challenging that finding. The review petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is bound to consider whether a suit is within time when no appeal or cross-objection is filed against the trial court's finding on limitation?
  • Can a respondent attack a decree or seek its variation on a point decided against them without filing a cross-objection?
  • Does the duty of the court under section 3 of the Limitation Act to consider limitation dispense with the requirement of filing an appeal or cross-objection against an adverse finding?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Board of Revenue and Other1973 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-01
  locus standisub-lesseewrit jurisdictionforfeiture of leasereview petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the forfeiture of a land lease. The petitioner, a sub-lessee of the original lessee, challenged the Board of Revenue's refusal to review an appellate order that had set aside the forfeiture of the lease of a plot in Karachi. The core legal question was whether a sub-lessee, who was not a party to the original forfeiture proceedings, possessed the locus standi to seek a review of the Board of Revenue's decision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi, as he was not a party to the forfeiture proceedings and his rights were subordinate to those of the original lessee. The Court affirmed that the acceptance of rent by the Deputy Commissioner did not confer independent rights upon the sub-lessee. The principle established is that a sub-lessee cannot maintain a review petition against proceedings involving the landlord's interest, and High Courts will not exercise writ jurisdiction to aid or perpetuate claims lacking independent legal standing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sub-lessee have the locus standi to file a review petition against an order concerning the forfeiture of the head lease?
  • Does the acceptance of rent by a government authority from a sub-lessee create an independent right or entitlement in favor of the sub-lessee?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to assist a party who lacks independent legal standing in the underlying administrative proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Dad vs Abdullah Khan and 2 Other1973 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-18
  special leave to appealacquittalinterested witnesscorroborationbenefit of doubtmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence or a failure to consider material evidence, thereby warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s decision was justified. The Court found that the prosecution’s case suffered from serious infirmities, including the reliance on interested witnesses without independent corroboration, contradictions between oral testimony and medical evidence, and the false implication of a co-accused. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where prosecution evidence is inherently infirm and lacks independent corroboration, especially when witnesses are interested parties, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on cogent and substantial reasoning derived from the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of interested witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  • Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused when the prosecution evidence is in conflict with medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated an innocent co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumo vs The State1973 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-15
  appeal against acquittalsection 377 PPCsodomycorroborationappreciation of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which set aside the trial court's acquittal order and convicted the petitioner under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy on a 14-year-old boy. The core issue was whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal based on its re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court possesses the authority to review evidence and form its own conclusion, provided it duly considers the trial court's reasoning. The Court noted that the victim's testimony was corroborated by immediate medical examination confirming semen on swabs from the victim and petitioner, alongside the prompt arrest. Holding that appreciation of evidence is not ordinarily undertaken by the Supreme Court absent a serious disregard of established principles, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to re-appreciate evidence and reverse an order of acquittal in an appeal filed by the State?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with lower court findings on the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan and Others vs Mahmud Khan and Other1973 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-18
  res judicataarbitration awarddismissal in defaultcause of actionlimitation periodcollateral purposeunregistered agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning land ownership and revenue entries. The core legal questions involve whether the third suit filed by the respondents was barred by the principles of res judicata, whether it was barred under rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the dismissal of a previous suit in default, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was neither barred by res judicata—since the subject-matter differed and matters outside a suit's scope cannot be validly referred to arbitration under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940—nor by Order IX rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the subsequent suit arose from a fresh cause of action involving the rejection of a later mutation. Furthermore, the suit was within limitation. The key legal principles laid down are that an arbitration award and consequential decree cannot exceed the subject-matter in difference in the suit, an unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes such as explaining the nature of a cause of action, and a fresh cause of action accrues upon the denial of ownership rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration award and decree can operate as res judicata regarding matters not covered by the original suit?
  • Does the dismissal of a previous suit in default under rule 8 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit founded on a distinct and fresh cause of action?
  • Can an unregistered agreement be used for collateral purposes to establish the nature of the cause of action and limitation?
  • When does a fresh cause of action accrue in a suit concerning ownership of land where the plaintiffs remain in continuous possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan vs Abdul Latif Khan and Other1973 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-20
  abatementlegal representativespre-emption suitsubstitution of heirscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court concerning the abatement of a pre-emption suit. The original plaintiff, Abdul Manan, instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption but died on May 11, 1969. An application to implead his legal representatives was filed on September 29, 1969, by his son and attorney. The core legal question was whether the suit had abated due to the failure to substitute the legal heirs within ninety days of the death, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in treating the substitution application as a combined application for setting aside the abatement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion by treating the application as a combined application for setting aside the abatement and substituting the legal heirs, given that the parties were illiterate and misled by the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit abates automatically if legal representatives are not impleaded within ninety days of a plaintiff's death?
  • Can an application for impleading legal representatives be treated as a combined application for setting aside abatement?
  • Does the court have discretion to set aside abatement in cases involving illiterate parties misled by circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs Mst. Zuhra and Another1973 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-22
  land ownershipshamilatJamabandirevenue recordspresumption of correctnessconcurrent findings of factpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership and possession of Khasra No. 1226. The appellant claimed title based on a 1902 sale deed, while the respondents asserted ownership as purchasers from a co-sharer in the shamilat, supported by revenue entries in the Jamabandi. The core legal question was whether a co-owner or co-sharer could be dispossessed without a regular partition, alongside the factual determination of title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which held that the appellant failed to prove his purchase of the specific Khasra number in question. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries in the Jamabandi, which consistently recorded the respondents as owners and possessors. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding title and possession based on revenue records were not subject to interference, and the appellant's claim of title remained unsubstantiated by the evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner or co-sharer be dispossessed of land without a regular partition?
  • Does a presumption of correctness attach to entries in the Jamabandi?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding land title?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re: Special Reference under Article 187 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan By President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vs Not1973 PLD Supreme Court 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-07-05
  Special Referencerecognition of BangladeshNational Assembly resolutionexecutive poweract of statelegislative competenceconstitutional amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Special Reference was made by the President of Pakistan under Article 187 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on whether the National Assembly could validly adopt a resolution expressing the opinion that the Government may accord formal recognition to Bangladesh, and seeking an assurance from the Assembly to take necessary legal and constitutional measures to that end. The Court observed that the recognition of a sovereign state is an executive act of political nature. A resolution of the National Assembly is merely an expression of opinion or a declaration of a wish and does not possess the force of law or constitutional amendment, which requires a prescribed legislative process. Under the Rules of Procedure, members have the right to move resolutions on matters of general public interest. The Court held that there is no legal or constitutional bar to the National Assembly passing such a resolution, as it does not violate any constitutional provision and cannot legally bind future or present Parliaments when actual legislative or constitutional measures are subsequently introduced.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Assembly validly adopt a resolution expressing an opinion on a matter of foreign policy, such as the recognition of a foreign state?
  • Does a resolution passed by a single house of the legislature have the force of law or the effect of amending the Constitution?
  • Can an assurance or promise contained in a legislative resolution legally bind a future or present Parliament in its subsequent legislative actions?
  • Is the recognition of a foreign state an executive act or a legislative function?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs The State1973 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-21
  murderattempted murderself-defenceocular testimonycriminal appealappreciation of evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's plea of self-defence and whether the prosecution evidence was fabricated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating weapons. The Court rejected the self-defence plea, finding the appellant's version unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the alleged location of his shop and the implausibility of the deceased attacking with a fragile barber's scissors. The Court established that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case when the testimony is otherwise credible and corroborated by independent evidence. Furthermore, the burden of proving self-defence rests on the accused, and such a plea requires substantial evidentiary support rather than mere assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of minor discrepancies in witness statements automatically falsify the prosecution's case?
  • Is a plea of self-defence established when the accused fails to provide evidence supporting the alleged circumstances of the incident?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Bang vs Mir Muhammad Rizvi1973 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-20
  landlord-tenant disputemunicipal taxessmall cause court jurisdictionrent enhancementconciliation courtsreimbursement of taxesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addressed whether a landlord could recover water and conservancy taxes from a tenant, and whether the Small Cause Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. The respondent argued the claim was barred by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and that the matter fell under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was inapplicable to the period in question, as the claim predated its enforcement in Karachi. The Court affirmed that the landlord was entitled to recover these taxes under the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the suit was not for the enhancement of rent and therefore did not fall under the prohibited categories of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Consequently, the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction, and the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, did not bar the suit. The appeal was allowed, establishing that tax reimbursement claims are distinct from rent enhancement and maintainable in Small Cause Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit by a landlord for the recovery of municipal taxes paid on behalf of a tenant considered a suit for the enhancement of rent?
  • Does the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, bar a suit for the recovery of money where the claim is not based on a contract, receipt, or other document?
  • Can a landlord recover water and conservancy taxes from a tenant under the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933, for a period prior to the enforcement of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, exclude jurisdiction over suits for the recovery of municipal taxes paid by a landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Khan Ghulab Khan Ahd 3 Others Mst. Fatima and Another1973 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-09-04
  displaced personsclaims verificationsuo motu revisional jurisdictionmartial law regulationreview applicationletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These twelve appeals by special leave arose from an order of the High Court dismissing a review petition concerning an earlier order that had dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions. The appellants were displaced persons from a non-agreed area whose claims for agricultural land had been verified, but subsequently rejected as bogus by the Additional Claims Commissioner under section 7(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. During the pendency of their revisions, Martial Law Regulations 84 and 89 were promulgated, stopping investigations and introducing a slab system. The learned Single Judge had held the revisional order to be without jurisdiction but directed that the claims be treated as pending for verification under Martial Law Regulation 89. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were misconceived and amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the final and unappealed judgment of the Letters Patent Bench, as the order refusing review decided no new issue and could not be used to bypass limitation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review application against an order dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal be used as a device to reopen the original judgment long after the period of limitation has expired?
  • Whether claims pending in revision at the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation 84 and 89 are subject to fresh verification under the slab system?
  • Does an order dismissing a review application that merely interprets a previous summary dismissal decide any substantive issue between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibad Ali vs Muhammad Hanif and Other1973 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-12
  produce index unitsabandoned landsettlement authoritiesspecial jamabandiwrit petitionquestion of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the entitlement of produce index units for agricultural land abandoned in India. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had obtained excess units because their abandoned land was incorrectly treated as irrigated. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner reduced the respondents' entitlement, and subsequent appeals and revisions were dismissed. The respondents challenged these orders through a constitutional petition in the High Court, which remanded the case for a fresh decision on whether the land shown in the special jamabandi was irrigated. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-examination of a question of fact. The Court held that the Settlement Authorities had failed to properly determine the true nature of the abandoned land due to an erroneous approach regarding classification descriptions in the special jamabandi. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's direction for a re-examination of the factual question by the settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a case where settlement authorities failed to determine the true nature of abandoned land?
  • Does a petition for special leave to appeal lie against an order of the High Court remanding a matter for fresh decision on a question of fact?
  • Whether settlement authorities can ignore specific descriptions of land in a special jamabandi on the basis of generalized instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hoshang and Other vs DR. Eddie P. Bharucha and Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  court-fee refundpreliminary pointremand of suitLetters Patent Appealenemy alienspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the refusal of the High Court to issue a certificate for the refund of court-fee under section 13 of the Court Fees Act. The appellants had originally filed a suit for specific performance and damages, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit against an enemy alien following the 1965 war. On appeal, a Division Bench reversed this finding and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The appellants subsequently applied for a certificate for the refund of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal, which the High Court dismissed. The core legal question was whether the disposal of the suit on the preliminary issue of maintainability amounted to a disposal on a 'preliminary point' attracting the refund provisions of the Court Fees Act. The Supreme Court held that a preliminary point is any point of fact or law whose decision avoids the necessity of a full hearing on the merits. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the issuance of the certificate for the refund of the court-fee.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a preliminary point for the purpose of refund of court fee under section 13 of the Court Fees Act?
  • Whether an appellant is entitled to a certificate for the refund of court-fee on the memorandum of appeal when a suit is remanded after being dismissed on a preliminary point?
  • Is the refund of court-fee under section 13 of the Court Fees Act distinct from and independent of the award of costs on the final conclusion of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan vs Ghulam Nabi and 7 Other1973 SC M R112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-06
  rent evictionwilful defaultstriking off defencebona fide mistakecounsel's advicerent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an order striking off the appellant's defence in an eviction proceeding due to alleged non-compliance with a Rent Controller's order regarding the deposit of rent. The core legal question was whether the appellant's failure to deposit the rent for May 1966 by the 15th of June 1966, as directed, constituted a wilful default warranting the striking off of his defence, or whether it resulted from a bona fide mistake based on legal advice. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's non-compliance was not wilful but rather the result of a bona fide misinterpretation of the Rent Controller's order by his counsel, upon which the appellant reasonably relied. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the appellate court, restoring the Rent Controller's original order and remanding the case for decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that a tenant should not be penalized for non-compliance with a procedural order when such non-compliance arises from a bona fide mistake or misinterpretation of the order by their legal counsel, rather than wilful default.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's reliance on a counsel's misinterpretation of a rent deposit order constitute wilful default?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order if the failure was not wilful?
  • Is a party liable for procedural non-compliance resulting from a bona fide mistake in interpreting a court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Harifullah vs Muhammad Umar and Another1973 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-16
  special leave to appealconcurrent findingsres judicatatenant-at-willrevenue recordsco-sharercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a suit filed by the petitioner for a declaration of ownership and possession of Shamlat land and to invalidate a revenue court decree for produce share. The trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner was not in Hissa Dari possession and had entered the land as a tenant-at-will. A subsequent second appeal in the High Court was treated as a revision petition under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and dismissed due to concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings based on revenue records cannot be disturbed, that a previous suit operated as res judicata, and that a tenant-at-will cannot repudiate that relationship on the ground of being a co-sharer. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual determinations and the doctrine of res judicata bar such claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below based on revenue records can be interfered with in revision?
  • Does a finding in a previous suit operate as res judicata regarding the question of Hissa Dari possession?
  • Can a person who entered upon land as a tenant-at-will repudiate that relationship on the ground of being a co-sharer in the Shamlat?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajl Muhammad Akram Etc. vs Mir Baz and Other1973 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-19
  attachment of propertycriminal procedureemergency attachmentcivil litigationsuppression of factsHigh Court order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court setting aside the attachment of a large tract of land measuring 2166 kanals and 3 marlas in Tehsil Nowshera, which had been ordered by the Assistant Commissioner upon an application sent via the Governor of N.-W.F.P. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Commissioner could legally attach the property without following the prescribed procedure or establishing an emergency under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether proceedings under section 145 were appropriate given the circumstances and pending civil litigation. The Supreme Court held that the attachment was illegal, noting that previous litigation concerned parts of the land, material facts were suppressed in the application to the Governor, no emergency was shown to justify immediate attachment under section 145, and the proper course of action should have been proceedings under section 107 rather than section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a magistrate attach property under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without recording reasons for considering the case one of emergency?
  • Whether an attachment of property is legally sustainable when material facts regarding pending civil litigation concerning the same land are suppressed?
  • Is a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appropriate where an application merely seeks to bind down the opposing party for apprehension of forcible occupation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sultan Muhammad and Another Jallu, Nawab Khan vs Muhammad1973 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-30
  pre-emptionevacuee propertyconfirmed allotteepermanent transfereecompensation pooljurisdiction of civil courtstemporary allottee
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the maintainability of pre-emption suits regarding sales of rights in evacuee lands by temporary allottees, confirmed allottees, and permanent transferees. The core legal questions involved whether these vendors possessed transferable interests under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and whether civil courts' jurisdictions were ousted by rehabilitation and evacuee laws such as the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The Court held that temporary allottees possess no saleable interest, making sales non-pre-emptiable. However, permanent transferees holding full ownership and confirmed allottees possessing 'real property' or occupancy-like rights do have transferable interests subject to pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court held that pre-emption suits merely seek substitution of the pre-emptor for the vendee and do not constitute a forbidden legal process or execution against property in the compensation pool, thus creating no bar under section 16 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 or section 6 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The appeals were adjudicated accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary allottees of evacuee land possess a saleable interest giving rise to a right of pre-emption?
  • Do sales of rights by confirmed allottees of evacuee land attract the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does section 16 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 bar a civil suit for pre-emption in respect of evacuee property?
  • Whether section 6 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 bars pre-emption suits concerning properties forming part of the compensation pool?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Wali Muhammad vs Ehsanullah and Another1973 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-28
  settlement lawproperty transferdivisibility of propertyallotment orderinconsistent pleasLetters Patent appealspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a Single Judge's order remanding a property dispute to Settlement Authorities. The dispute concerned the transfer of a house under settlement laws, where the petitioner claimed entitlement to the entire property based on an alleged prior allotment, while the respondent sought a division of the property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having initially failed to produce an allotment order and having taken inconsistent positions regarding his occupation, could subsequently rely on a suspicious document to claim the entire house, and whether the house was properly divisible. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, finding that the petitioner's claim was inconsistent with his earlier representations before the Settlement Authorities. The Court held that the house was correctly determined to be divisible, and transferring the entire property to one party would result in the transfer of two residential units, which is contrary to settlement law. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party rely on an allotment order in writ proceedings that was not produced before the Settlement Authorities?
  • Does the transfer of an entire house to a single claimant violate settlement law when the property is found to be divisible into two residential units?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the divisibility of a property by a Settlement Commissioner subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sikandar vs Malik Khan Muhammad and Other1973 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-14
  pre-emption suitlegal representativesdeceased partyappellate jurisdictionconsolidation of suits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the appellate court, which allowed an application to implead the legal representatives of a deceased co-plaintiff in a pre-emption appeal. The core legal question was whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased party when an appeal was initially filed against a deceased person. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court was justified in impleading the legal representatives under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly because the legal representatives and co-plaintiffs had themselves filed a separate appeal, thereby curing any defect in the initial appeal. The key principle laid down is that where other co-plaintiffs or legal representatives have independently filed an appeal arising from the same judgment, a procedural defect regarding an appeal filed against a deceased party can be cured, and the appellate court retains the jurisdiction to implead necessary parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court implead the legal representatives of a deceased party under Order XLI Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the appeal was initially filed against a deceased person?
  • Does the filing of a separate appeal by other co-plaintiffs and legal representatives cure a defect in an appeal filed against a deceased party?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Saidur Rehm an vs Nasrullah Jan and Another1973 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellconcurrent findingsbona fide purchaserspecial leave to appealsale of immovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of commercial property instituted by the petitioner tenant against the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner or the vendor failed to carry out their obligations under the sale agreement, and whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court held that the question of who failed to perform the agreement is a pure question of fact, and finding no misreading or ignoring of material evidence by the courts below, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the failure to perform a sale agreement can be set aside in a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Is a subsequent vendee protected as a bona fide purchaser for consideration under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act when the prior agreement is not acted upon by the prospective buyer?
  • Does the failure of a prospective buyer to have the sale registered within the specified time justify the dismissal of a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Nawab Din vs Qazi Abu Saeed1973 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-18
  review petitionurban rent restrictionpending proceedingsstatutory interpretationeviction of tenantamending ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for the review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of subsection (2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Second Amendment) Amending Ordinance No. XXII of 1966 and its effect on pending proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read alongside section 13(1) of the latter Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a contention amounting merely to a challenge to the correctness of the view taken in the original judgment does not constitute a valid ground for review. The Court reiterated its earlier interpretation that the amending law did not render pending proceedings infructuous and that specific provisions validated previous proceedings. The key principle laid down is that rearguing the correctness of an earlier interpretation of statutory provisions is not an admissible ground for seeking a review of a judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a challenge to the correctness of a court's previous interpretation of a statute constitute a valid ground for review?
  • Whether the omission of provisions by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Second Amendment) Amending Ordinance No. XXII of 1966 rendered pending proceedings before the Rent Controller infructuous?
  • What is the effect of section 13, subsection (1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on pending proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs Abdul Jabbar Khan Other1973 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-04-17
  special leave to appealbona fide purchaserunregistered sale deedregistered sale deedlimitationpossession and dispossessionmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning a plot of land in Peshawar. The petitioner claimed ownership through unregistered sale deeds executed in 1963 and possession thereof, invoking the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under the Transfer of Property Act. Conversely, the respondents instituted a suit for possession alleging that the land was transferred to their predecessor-in-interest by a registered sale deed in 1955 in lieu of dower. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, finding the subsequent unregistered deeds invalid and the suit within time, which concurrent findings were upheld by the first appellate court and the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act and whether protection could be granted to the petitioner. Holding that the concurrent findings of fact established prior valid transfer and possession with the respondents' predecessor, and that the petitioner acquired no title, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the suit was within time and the petitioner could not successfully resist the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered sale deed conveys valid title in preference to a prior registered sale deed?
  • Whether the rejection of a revenue mutation necessarily disproves the delivery and existence of possession?
  • Whether a suit for possession is barred by time when brought within twelve years of the established possession of the rightful owner?
  • Whether a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed without notice is entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without searching the Registrar's records?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mahboob Alam vs Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sargodha and Another1973 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-14
  land revenuerecovery of duesdefaulternatural justiceshow cause noticespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the dismissal of the petitioner's suit regarding the recovery of Rs. 57,085.45 as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner, a former commission agent for the sale of chemical fertilisers and seeds, was declared a defaulter under the West Pakistan Government Dues Recovery Ordinance, 1962, following which recovery proceedings were initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The petitioner argued that the recovery was initiated without proper determination of the sum due and without notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that unlike the precedent cases cited, the record clearly demonstrated that numerous notices were issued to the petitioner, that he had appeared in response, and that he was given ample opportunity to show cause and produce receipts. The Court affirmed that the suit was rightly dismissed for failure to comply with Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, by depositing the claimed amount under protest. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of government dues as arrears of land revenue requires prior notice and determination of liability?
  • Is a civil suit challenging the recovery of government dues maintainable without depositing the disputed amount under protest under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Karim and Another vs Zikar Abdullah1973 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-03-01
  summary suitleave to defendpromissory notesnegotiable instrumentspresumption of considerationconditional leave
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which granted the petitioners leave to defend a summary suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,23,250 based on two promissory notes, subject to the condition of depositing the suit amount or furnishing security. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in imposing conditions for leave to defend rather than granting it unconditionally. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court acted correctly within its discretion. The Court reasoned that while the petitioners alleged manipulation regarding the promissory notes, they did not deny their signatures. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a rebuttable presumption that such instruments are made for consideration, and the onus remains on the defendant to rebut this presumption. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this presumption was rebutted at the current stage, the imposition of terms for leave to defend was justified. The key principle established is that the Court retains discretion to impose conditions when granting leave to defend in summary suits, especially where the statutory presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unrebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court have discretion to impose conditions when granting leave to appear and defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 regarding consideration apply even when the defendant alleges manipulation of the promissory note?
  • Is the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the presumption of consideration attached to a negotiable instrument?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Dossa Ltd., Karachi vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Sahiwal, and Other1973 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-23
  cotton feeretrospective legislationvalidating ordinancelegislative competenceprovincial legislatureestoppel against governmentdiesel-run factories
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing challenges to fresh notices of demand for cotton fees issued by the Provincial Government. The petitioner contended that a prior statement by the Advocate-General, acknowledging the non-applicability of the cotton fee to diesel-run factories, precluded the Government from amending the law. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the vires of the Punjab Cotton Control (Validation of Levy of Fees) Ordinance, 1971, arguing it could not retrospectively validate a levy previously declared invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Advocate-General’s previous statement could not fetter the legislature's power to amend the law. The Court affirmed that the legislature possesses the competence to enact laws with retrospective effect to validate levies previously declared invalid, provided the legislation explicitly confers such retrospective operation. Furthermore, the Court held that the Provincial Legislature has the authority to impose taxes or fees on subjects within its competence, and such legislative power cannot be restricted by prior legal interpretations or statements made by government counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement made by the Advocate-General in previous litigation prevent the legislature from amending the law?
  • Does the Provincial Legislature have the power to enact legislation with retrospective effect to validate a previously invalid levy?
  • Is the Punjab Cotton Control (Validation of Levy of Fees) Ordinance, 1971, ultra vires the powers of the Provincial Legislature?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Dossa Limited, Karachi vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Sahiwal and Other1973 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-01-23
  cotton feeretrospective legislationvalidating ordinanceestoppel against legislatureprovincial legislative competenceultra viresspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of its writ petitions challenging fresh notices of demand for cotton fee issued under the Punjab Cotton Control (Validation of Levy of Fees) Ordinance 1971. The petitioner contended that an earlier statement by the Advocate-General bound the Government from applying the levy to diesel-run factories, that the 1971 Ordinance was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature under the 1962 Constitution, and that a void demand could not be retrospectively validated. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a statement by law officers regarding the law as it stood cannot restrict or estop the Legislature's constitutional power to amend laws retrospectively. The Court held that under Article 132 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962), the Provincial Legislature had power to legislate on matters not enumerated in the Third Schedule, including the levy of cotton fees. Furthermore, the Legislature possesses full power to validate past invalid levies by express retrospective legislation containing deeming provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a concession or statement made by an Advocate-General in court estop the legislature from subsequently amending a law with retrospective effect?
  • Does a Provincial Legislature have competence under the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) to enact legislation levying cotton fees on diesel-run factories?
  • Can a legislative enactment or ordinance retrospectively validate tax or fee demands that were previously declared void or without lawful authority by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and 4 Other vs The Custodian, Evacuee1973 PLD Supreme Court 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-02-12
  evacuee propertyconfirmation of transfercustodianno-objection certificateagricultural landexchange of propertiesincome-tax clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the transfer of evacuee property and agricultural land under evacuee legislation. The core legal questions involved whether a No-Objection Certificate from income-tax authorities was necessary for the confirmation of the transfer of agricultural land under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, and whether separate confirmation under section 20 was required after the Custodian had already accorded approval under section 19. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that sections 19 and 20 of the Act operate independently at different stages with distinct scopes and objects—section 19 dealing with general prohibitions and sanctions for registration, and section 20 requiring individual scrutiny and confirmation by the Custodian. Consequently, the requirement for separate scrutiny and compliance, including relevant certificates, remains necessary, and transactions are not merely being 'blessed twice' redundantly. The Court reaffirmed that statutory provisions must be interpreted according to their specific legislative contexts and safeguards regarding evacuee property and state revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a No-Objection Certificate was necessary for confirmation of transfer of agricultural land by the Custodian under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act XII of 1957?
  • Whether confirmation under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act XII of 1957 was necessary after the Custodian had accorded approval to the proposed transfer under section 19?
  • Do sections 19 and 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act XII of 1957 apply independently or to the exclusion of each other?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ash Raf Ud Din vs Sabir Hussain and Another1973 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-02
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentcontractual renturban rent restrictionspecial leave to appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Peshawar High Court ordering the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner for default in the payment of rent. The core legal questions concern whether a demand for a higher rate of rent by a landlord absolves a tenant from paying the established contractual rent, and whether the finding of default—a question of fact—warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the liability to pay or tender the contractual rent remains upon the tenant irrespective of any higher amount demanded by the landlord, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding default will not be disturbed in the absence of legal error. The Court laid down the principle that a landlord's excessive rent demand does not excuse a tenant from defaulting on admitted contractual rent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord demanding a higher rate of rent absolve the tenant from paying or tendering the established contractual rent?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a tenant's default in the payment of rent?
  • Is a tenant liable to be ejected upon committing default in the payment of rent without the presence of peculiar circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Haj1 Mian Muhammad and Another vs Ghulam Mustafa1973 PLD Supreme Court 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-23
  pre-emptionseraishopexemptionstare decisisestoppelpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent to pre-empt the sale of a property described as a 'serai' in Peshawar. The vendees (appellants) resisted the suit, claiming the property was exempt from pre-emption under Section 5 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, as it was a 'serai' or, alternatively, a 'shop' because it was used as business premises. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the property functioned as a shop. The High Court reversed this, holding that the 'shop' defense was not pleaded and that the property was neither a shop nor a serai. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the term 'serai' must be construed in its popular sense as a commercial establishment for the temporary accommodation of travellers with public access. Since the property was primarily used for the raw hides business, it was not a 'serai' at the time of sale. The Court also ruled that exceptions to pre-emption laws must be strictly construed and that the doctrine of stare decisis supported maintaining the long-standing judicial interpretation of 'serai'.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct legal definition and popular meaning of the term 'serai' for the purpose of exemption under pre-emption laws?
  • Can a party raise a new defense of exemption on the ground of a property being a 'shop' if they only pleaded that the property was a 'serai' in their written statement?
  • At what point in time must the true nature and character of a property be determined to decide if it is exempt from pre-emption?
  • Does the nominal description of a property as a 'serai' in previous litigation estop a party from challenging its actual character in a subsequent pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Umar Gul and Another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Tribal Areas, Rawalpindi and 4 Other1973 PLD Supreme Court 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-02
  writ jurisdictiontribal areasspecial areasconstitutional amendmentretrospective effectpending lissupreme court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether the High Court of West Pakistan possessed writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution in relation to the tribal territory of Dir State. The appellants, representing local tribes, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Political Agent regarding agricultural produce. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over tribal areas, citing clause (5) of Article 223 of the 1962 Constitution, added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1963. On appeal, a split decision was rendered by the Supreme Court. The majority of the Court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the writ jurisdiction of the superior courts was never extended to the tribal areas under President's Order No. 11 of 1961 or preceding constitutional provisions, or that such jurisdiction was effectively excluded and subsequently clarified by the First Amendment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning the tribal territory.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court possess writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution in relation to tribal areas?
  • Whether President's Order No. 11 of 1961 had the effect of restoring or extending the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to the tribal and special areas?
  • Does clause (5) of Article 223 of the 1962 Constitution operate retrospectively to abate pending writ proceedings relating to tribal areas?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Dawood vs Abdul Ali Khan1973 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-08-19
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentdisplaced personsurban rent restrictionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in the payment of rent and failure to comply with notice requirements under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The landlord claimed default in rent, while the tenant contended that proper tenders had been made and that repair charges should be adjusted. The Rent Controller found the tenant in default, but the first appellate court reversed this, holding that the demand for excess rent absolved the tenant from tendering lawful rent. The High Court restored the ejectment order in second appeal. The core legal question was whether a demand for excess rent by a landlord absolves a tenant from tendering the lawful rent, and whether the tenant was in default. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a demand for excess rent does not absolve the tenant from tendering the proper, lawful amount of rent, and established the principle that failure to pay or tender rent for multiple months and lump-sum tenders contrary to statutory provisions constitute valid grounds for ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a demand for excess rent by a landlord absolve the tenant from tendering the lawful rent?
  • Whether the failure to tender rent for several months constitutes a default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant make lump-sum rent tenders for several months at a time under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Khan vs Mst. Taj Bibi and Other1973 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  special leave to appealsecond appealadmission in written statementfraudulent impersonationcause of actioninheritance mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court in a second appeal. The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration of sole ownership and an injunction regarding the property of his deceased cousin, based on an alleged unregistered sale deed. The trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner's claim false and noting that a written statement purportedly admitting the claim on behalf of one defendant, Mst. Taj Bibi, was obtained through coercion and fraud involving female impersonation. The Additional District Judge partially decreed the suit based on the admission, but the High Court, upon an inquiry, set aside that finding and held that the written statement was procured fraudulently. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that if the entire foundation of the plaintiff's cause of action is found to be false, the suit cannot succeed in part even against a defendant who purportedly admitted the claim. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit succeed in part against a defendant admitting the plaintiff's claim if the entire foundation of the cause of action is found to be false?
  • Whether a written statement procured through coercion and female impersonation can form the basis of a decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulfam vs The State1973 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-11
  murderdeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyrecovery of blood-stained weaponcriminal appealcorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by special leave, challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, which maintained the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mahmood Shah and confirmed his death sentence. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction was based on sound principles of criminal justice, given the contentions regarding eyewitness testimony delay and recovery evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction was well-founded, relying on the credible and corroborated eyewitness testimony of an independent witness, direct medical evidence, and the recovery of blood-stained clothing and a weapon from the appellant's person and possession. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies or delays in reporting by a witness frightened by the accused do not impair credibility when adequately explained and supported by solid corroborative evidence such as chemical examiner reports and recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable based on the testimony of a single eyewitness corroborated by recoveries?
  • Does a delay in reporting an occurrence by an eyewitness render their testimony untrustworthy when explained by fear and threats from the accused?
  • Can the recovery of blood-stained clothing and a weapon at the instance of the accused serve as valid corroboration of guilt?
  Read full judgment →