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.

• Syed Rafi Ahmad vs Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and Other1971 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-28
  restoration of petitionnon-prosecutionlimitation periodprofessional negligencecivil reviewbar council
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a Civil Review Petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner's counsel and the petitioner's attorney provided conflicting accounts regarding the counsel's absence on the date the petition was dismissed. The counsel claimed he left the courtroom believing the bench was improperly constituted, while the attorney stated the counsel refused to appear. The Court observed that regardless of the conflict, the counsel displayed significant indifference by failing to ascertain the status of the case or seek the Court's indulgence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the restoration application was filed over two months after the dismissal, well beyond the period of limitation, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for restoration primarily due to the inordinate delay in filing, while also referring the matter of the counsel's professional conduct to the Bar Council for necessary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between a counsel and an attorney regarding the reasons for non-appearance excuse a failure to prosecute a petition?
  • Can a restoration application be dismissed solely on the grounds of inordinate delay in filing after the period of limitation has expired?
  • What is the consequence of a counsel's indifference in attending to a case when it leads to dismissal for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Hyder vs The State1971 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-19
  forgeryfraudhandwriting comparisonexpert evidencecriminal convictionappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, formerly the Secretary of the United Provinces Mohajirin Association, was convicted under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fraud and forgery related to the sale of land plots. The prosecution alleged the petitioner induced the complainant to pay for a plot using a forged agreement of sale purportedly executed by an allottee, Saeed Hassan, whose signature was denied. The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872. The petitioner challenged this, arguing the High Court misread the documents and improperly assumed the role of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court noted that while courts are empowered under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 to compare signatures to form an opinion, the reliability of such a comparison depends on accuracy. Given the contention that the High Court misread the documents, the Supreme Court ordered the original records to be produced for its own examination before deciding the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court empowered to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures to form an opinion under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Should a court rely solely on its own comparison of handwriting without expert assistance?
  • Can a conviction based on a court's own comparison of signatures be challenged if the court allegedly misread the documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haider Shah vs Mukhtar Hussain Shah and 6 Other1971 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1964-11-26
  special leave to appealdisplaced personsettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionquestion of factmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan affirming an order passed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner challenged orders of the settlement authorities whereby it was held that he was not a displaced person entitled to the transfer of a house, but a local. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere under writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the migration status of a petitioner, and whether a misreading of evidence warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the petitioner was a displaced person required factual investigation not permissible under writ jurisdiction, and that inferences drawn from the petitioner's statement remained legitimate despite minor inaccuracies in summary by lower authorities. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that factual findings by settlement authorities regarding refugee status ordinarily preclude interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of whether a person is a displaced person or a local requires an investigation into questions of fact not permissible under writ jurisdiction?
  • Does a minor misreading or inaccurate summary of a statement by a settlement authority constitute sufficient ground for interference by the High Court?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdus Salam vs The West Pakistan Province (through Collector, Lyallpur) and 11 Other1971 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-30
  land allotmentcivil court jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesFard-e-Haqiatexhaustion of remediesspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the cancellation of a land allotment (khata). The petitioner's khata was initially confirmed, but subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands, based on a report indicating the cancellation of the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat from the Central Record Room, rendering the right-holder ineligible for the allotment. The petitioner challenged this cancellation in the civil court, seeking a declaration of illegality, but the suit, along with subsequent appeals and revisions, was dismissed by the trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation order was justified as the petitioner lacked entitlement following the removal of the Fard-e-Haqiat. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner pursued an incorrect remedy by approaching the civil court instead of exhausting the appellate and revisional hierarchy established under the Land Settlement Act. The Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters is expressly barred by the relevant statutory provisions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding land allotment?
  • Is a petitioner required to exhaust remedies of appeal and revision under the Land Settlement Act before approaching a civil court?
  • Can a land allotment be cancelled if the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat is cancelled from the Central Record Room?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Alias Sultan Ahmad vs Mehr Nawazish Ali and Another1971 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-05
  pre-emptionamendment of plaintacceptance of costacquiescencerevision
  Summary & questions settled

  The first respondent instituted a pre-emption suit against the petitioner, during which an application for amendment of the plaint was filed and allowed. Subsequently, the plaint was returned due to exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction and was presented before the Senior Civil Judge, where a similar amendment application was allowed subject to payment of costs. The petitioner challenged this amendment order in revision before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner intentionally accepted the awarded costs from the trial court. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the acceptance of costs amounted to acquiescence in the amendment. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having withdrawn the costs with full knowledge that payment was a condition precedent to the amendment, and considering that the identical amendment had been previously allowed, had acquiesced to the order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that acceptance of conditional costs bars subsequent challenge to the amendment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of costs awarded as a condition precedent for amending a plaint amount to acquiescence in the amendment?
  • Can a party challenge an order allowing the amendment of a plaint after intentionally receiving the costs granted under that very order?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Muhammad Khan1971 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-08
  pre-emption suitsecond appealconcurrent findingsspecial leave to appealnew pleaco-sharerjoint khata
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the West Pakistan High Court, which had summarily dismissed a second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The High Court had declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the value and nature of improvements made on the land. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to raise a new argument, contending that the pre-emption decree was illegal because the petitioner was a co-sharer in a joint khata, and thus, exclusive possession could not be granted without partition. The petitioner further argued this point was covered by an issue regarding the value of improvements. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the issue regarding improvements could not encompass the question of co-sharership or partition. The Court affirmed that a new point, not raised in the lower courts or the High Court, cannot be introduced for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner might address executability concerns during execution proceedings if applicable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a new legal point, not raised in the lower courts or the High Court, be introduced for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Does an issue regarding the value of improvements on land encompass a claim regarding the status of a co-sharer in a joint khata?
  • Is a decree for exclusive possession of pre-empted land inherently illegal if the defendant is a co-sharer in a joint khata?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah vs Ayub and 5 Others1971 PLD Supreme Court 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-09
  murderunlawful assemblyfirst information reportadmissibilityconfessioninterested witnesscriminal appealacquittal set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Seat, which had acquitted five respondents of murder and unlawful assembly charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on three eye-witnesses, the recovery of blood-stained items, and a report (Exh. PA/1) lodged by one of the accused prior to the formal First Information Report. The High Court had excluded this report and rejected the eye-witness testimony primarily on the ground of relationship to the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the admissibility of the accused's report, holding that because it was self-exculpatory and lodged before any formal investigation against him had commenced, it did not constitute a confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872, nor was it barred by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further held that mere relationship is insufficient to discredit natural eye-witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and restored the convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a self-exculpatory report lodged by an accused person before a formal investigation begins constitute a confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Does Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the admissibility of a statement made to the police before a formal case has been registered against the maker?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be rejected solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased in the absence of proven animus or enmity against the accused?
  • Can an admission made by one co-accused in an admissible report be used to corroborate the presence of other co-accused at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar Major Aziz Ahmad vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 3 Other1971 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-18
  agreement of associationSettlement Scheme No. 1cancellation of agreementAdditional Settlement Commissionervested rightswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, setting aside the decision of the Settlement authorities which had cancelled an agreement of association between the appellant and respondent No. 1 under Settlement Scheme No. 1. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner had properly exercised jurisdiction under Memorandum No. 4241-P-Reh-60 to allow the cancellation and withdrawal of the agreement of association based on alleged procedural deficiencies and disputes between the parties. The Supreme Court held that minor procedural defects, such as missing original documents, minor stamp duty deficiency, or lack of preliminary scrutiny, do not constitute exceptional or deserving grounds justifying the cancellation of an agreement of association in which vested rights had accrued to a party. Consequently, the Court found that the Settlement authorities acted contrary to law and in excess of their jurisdiction, affirming the High Court's judgment and dismissing the appeal with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agreement of association executed under Settlement Scheme No. 1 be cancelled on minor procedural defects such as deficient stamp duty or lack of preliminary scrutiny?
  • Whether Settlement authorities act in excess of jurisdiction when allowing withdrawal from an agreement of association without establishing exceptional and deserving grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohab vs Siraj Din and 6 Other1971 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-01
  acquittalspecial leave to appealinterested witnesscorroborationocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, regarding a conspiracy to murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to disturb the acquittal of the respondents, given the prosecution's reliance on ocular evidence from interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had rightly rejected the eye-witness testimony due to the witnesses' close relationship with the deceased and their enmity toward the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide corroborating evidence, as the recovered weapons did not match the crime empties, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's claim regarding the number of shots fired. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted properly in refusing to interfere with the acquittal, as the prosecution case lacked substance and independent corroboration. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that interested witness testimony requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal be set aside when the ocular evidence is provided solely by interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does a discrepancy between medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and the prosecution's version of events undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere with an acquittal order where the prosecution evidence lacks corroboration and fails to inspire confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Islam vs The State1971 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-02
  criminal breach of trustcriminal misconductpublic servantcash shortagetemporary advanceacquittal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave was directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The appellant, a public servant, was accused of criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct regarding a cash shortage of Rs. 2,150. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that a cash shortage had existed prior to the appellant taking charge, and that a long-standing practice existed in the department of making temporary advances to officers against chits and cheques. The Court held that the appellant's routine endorsements in the cash-book certifying correctness did not amount to an admission of guilt or misappropriation, especially when the cash was not physically verified. Finding no dishonest intention or criminal intent behind the irregular advances, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether routine administrative endorsements in a cash-book certifying accounts as correct constitute an admission of criminal misappropriation when physical cash verification was not conducted?
  • Can a public servant be held criminally liable for breach of trust for temporary advances made to department officers in accordance with a long-standing departmental practice?
  • Does the existence of a cash shortage prior to an accused taking charge of an office negate the presumption of criminal misappropriation against him for subsequent shortages?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat and 4 Others vs Master Fazal Karim1971 PLD Supreme Court 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-21
  pre-emptionestoppelwaiversecond appealconcurrent findings of factcross-examinationadmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and decreed a pre-emption suit brought by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in second appeal in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plea of estoppel and waiver. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in using an omission in a pre-litigation document (Exh. D.1) to reject the oral evidence of the appellants without drawing their attention to it during cross-examination in accordance with settled law. The ratio decidendi is that a previous statement or omission amounting to an admission or inconsistent stance cannot be used to contradict a witness on oath unless the witness is given an opportunity to explain it during cross-examination. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in second appeal in reversing concurrent findings of fact of the courts below based on an omission in a document?
  • Can a previous document or omission be used to contradict a witness on oath without drawing the witness's attention to it during cross-examination?
  • Does active participation in negotiations and presence at the registration of a sale deed estop a plaintiff from bringing a suit for pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Akbar Ali and 2 Others vs The State the State1971 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-20
  murdercriminal appealdeath sentenceintention to killculpable homicidebrutal forcemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of one Allah Ditta. The core legal question was whether the appellants' actions, which resulted in severe injuries, constituted murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the alleged absence of intent to kill. The appellants argued that the specific locale of the injuries indicated an intent to cause bodily harm rather than death. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the intention to kill was manifest from the use of deadly weapons with brutal force, which caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court affirmed that intention is judged by the nature of the act performed, and the infliction of multiple severe injuries causing rapid death demonstrated a clear intent to kill, regardless of the specific body parts targeted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of deadly weapons to inflict injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death establish the intention to kill?
  • Can the intention of an accused be inferred from the nature of the act performed and the severity of the injuries inflicted?
  • Does the fact that an accused chose not to strike vital areas like the head necessarily negate an intention to cause death?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The State1971 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-01
  criminal appealmedical evidenceautopsy reporttransfer of evidenceabetmentmurderappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan maintaining the appellant's conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code while reducing the death sentence to transportation for life. Leave to appeal was granted specifically to examine the effect of the non-production of the medical officer who conducted the autopsy, whose deposition was brought on record under section 509 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court observed that the defence had neither requested the doctor's attendance for cross-examination in the Sessions Court nor raised any objection during the trial or in the High Court. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found the prosecution case regarding the murder and assault fully established. The Court held that the appellant and his co-accused abetted the murder of the deceased, altering the conviction from section 302/34 to section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, while maintaining the sentence of transportation for life, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of admitting a medical officer's deposition under section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the defence fails to request the witness's production at trial?
  • Can an objection regarding the non-production of a medical witness for cross-examination be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the appellate court can alter a conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on established facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shera and Others vs Mst. Fatima and Another1971 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-07
  Section 145 CrPCAttachment of propertyTemporary injunctionRestoration of possessionCivil court supremacyCustomary lawApprehension of breach of peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a criminal revision petition. The matter concerned a dispute over agricultural land where a Civil Judge had granted a temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1, protecting her possession. While the suit was pending, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated, resulting in the attachment of the land and appointment of receivers. Upon being apprised of the civil court's interim injunction, the Magistrate vacated the attachment and directed restoration of possession to respondent No. 1, which the appellants challenged. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are subordinate to decrees and orders of a civil court regulating possession. A Magistrate must cease dealing with possession once a civil court is seized of the dispute and has regulated interim possession. Furthermore, upon lifting an attachment, the Magistrate possesses jurisdiction to pass ancillary orders restoring possession to the party entitled to it under the civil court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subordinate to the orders and decrees of a competent civil court regulating possession?
  • Must a Magistrate drop or vacate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once a civil court has issued an interim injunction regarding the possession of the disputed property?
  • Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction, upon withdrawing or vacating an attachment order under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to pass ancillary orders restoring possession of the property to the party protected by a civil court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner and Other1971 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-09
  land allotmentsettlement cancellationfraudulent allotmentproduce index unitsdelegated powersshamilat landpermanent settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of an allotment of land by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner, having obtained an allotment of 386 kanals, had 355 kanals cancelled due to an excess allotment resulting from an inflated verification of his claim. The core legal questions were whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the delegated authority to cancel the allotment, whether a permanent settlement could be cancelled under the relevant Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to retain excess land obtained through an inadvertent administrative error. The Supreme Court held that the delegation of powers was validly made via notification. It further held that a settlement obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is not a lawful settlement and remains an allotment subject to cancellation under the statute. The Court affirmed that a party cannot benefit from their own fraud or administrative errors, and that the discretion exercised by the Settlement Authorities was lawful. The petition was dismissed, establishing that 'settlement' implies a lawful settlement, and unlawful settlements remain subject to cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a settlement obtained through fraud or misrepresentation be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Does the term 'settlement' under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 imply a lawful settlement?
  • Are Settlement Authorities empowered to cancel a permanent settlement if it was obtained through fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and Another vs The Crown1971 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1954-10-20
  murderdeath sentencedisputed possessionright of private defenceunlawful assemblycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from the conviction of the appellants, Sher Muhammad and Abdul Sadiq, for murder and their resulting death sentences confirmed by the Court of Judicial Commissioner, N.-W.F.P., in connection with a deadly riot over a disputed strip of land that left six persons dead and others injured. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants and their co-accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defence or as aggressors in furtherance of a common object during the violent clash arising from trespass onto land lawfully possessed by the deceased party. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, holding that the appellants and their associates were the aggressors who came armed to take forcible possession of land belonging to the victims, and that no bona fide right of private defence existed. The Court established that where parties assemble with lethal weapons to enforce a civil claim by force and initiate an attack, resulting in multiple homicides, the perpetrators are criminally liable for murder, and courts must harmonize eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to ascertain the true sequence of aggression.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person asserting a claim to land has the right to bring armed partisans to take forcible possession thereof?
  • Can a plea of private defence be sustained where the accused party initiates an armed trespass resulting in multiple homicides?
  • How should conflicting testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the sequence of a sudden violent affray be reconciled by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs The State1971 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-25
  murderbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonyabscondencecorroborationspecial leave to appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The petitioner and his brothers were initially convicted by the trial court, but the High Court acquitted the brothers while maintaining the petitioner's conviction, citing the specific evidence that the petitioner's shot caused the fatal injury. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the eye-witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, required corroboration and that the physical layout of the crime scene made the shooting impossible. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case was distinct because the medical evidence confirmed his shot was the fatal one, unlike his co-accused whose shots missed. Furthermore, the Court found the eye-witnesses to be natural witnesses and noted that the petitioner's nine-month abscondence provided sufficient corroboration. The Court affirmed the principle that where evidence against one accused is specific and corroborated by circumstances like abscondence, conviction is sustainable despite the acquittal of co-accused. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of one accused be maintained when co-accused are acquitted based on the specific nature of the evidence against the former?
  • Does the close relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony without corroboration?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused serve as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal and 3 Others vs Amir Bux and Another1971 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-20
  petition for leave to appealarbitration awardpartnership accountsframing of issuesappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which had refused to interfere with the finding of an arbitrator. The core legal question concerned whether an arbitrator's finding that a disputed sum of Rs. 75,000 standing debited in the names of the respondents was in fact appropriated by the petitioner, and that he was liable to account for the same, was sustainable despite the petitioner's contention that no specific issue was framed on the point. The Supreme Court held that the petition was wholly without substance, noting that the plea had been specifically taken in the written statement and that evidence had been duly brought on the record to support the finding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a party cannot complain of a lack of a formal issue where the matter was squarely raised in pleadings and evidence was led thereon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an arbitrator's finding of fact regarding the misappropriation of partnership funds?
  • Is the absence of a specific issue fatal to an arbitrator's finding when the plea was specifically raised in the pleadings and evidence was led thereon?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat Alias Shauka vs The State1971 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-15
  murderdeath sentenceprivate defenceeye-witness testimonymedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the confirmation of a death sentence by the High Court for the murder of the deceased, who was a witness in a pending criminal case against the appellant's associates. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence, and whether the appellant successfully established a plea of private defence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, whose presence at the scene was established. The Court rejected the appellant's defence plea, noting that the defence witnesses were interested parties and their version was physically inconsistent with the site plan and medical findings regarding the nature of the injuries. The Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, ruling that the plea of private defence was unsubstantiated and that the sentence was legally sound, leaving any consideration for commutation to the executive government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a plea of private defence be sustained when the defence evidence is inconsistent with the physical site plan and medical findings?
  • Does the failure of a post-mortem report to explicitly mention a shirt on the deceased invalidate prosecution evidence regarding the clothing of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Begum vs The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan and Another1971 PLD Supreme Court 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-25
  suo motu jurisdictionpolice investigationjudicial interferenceinherent powers of High Courttransfer of investigationArticle 98 ConstitutionLetters PatentSection 561-A Cr.P.C.separation of powersabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged suo motu orders of a Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, who intervened in a police investigation into a mysterious death, citing newspaper reports of potential tampering. The High Court had called for investigation papers, directed the Advocate-General to scrutinize them, and ordered an inquiry into investigating officers' conduct, leading to the registration of a murder case and the appellant's arrest. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction for such suo motu action under the Constitution of 1962, the Letters Patent, or Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to supervise or interfere with police investigations, transfer ongoing investigations, or conduct suo motu inquiries into officials' statutory functions. The Court emphasized the complementary, not overlapping, roles of the judiciary and police, and that judicial functions typically begin when a charge is preferred. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Lahore High Court's decision in Chauhar Khan v. The State was overruled.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have suo motu jurisdiction to supervise or interfere with an ongoing police investigation into a cognizable offence?
  • Can a High Court, under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, initiate suo motu action regarding executive actions?
  • Does Clause 22 of the Letters Patent of the High Courts of West Pakistan grant the High Court power to transfer an investigation that has already commenced?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower a High Court to quash or transfer a police investigation?
  • What is the scope of "preliminary investigation" as referred to in Clause 22 of the Letters Patent?
  • Can a High Court direct the transfer of an investigation from one competent investigating agency to another under its inherent powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khalil vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi1971 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1964-03-31
  writ of mandamusstatutory corporationcivil postpublic officeconstitutional protectionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a writ of restoration to his position as Secretary to the Managing Director of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation after being refused relief by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an employee of a statutory corporation, was entitled to the constitutional protection afforded to civil servants under Article 181 of the Constitution of 1956, and whether his position constituted a 'public office' amenable to a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court held that the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, despite being subject to government controls, is a distinct statutory body and not a branch of the Central Government. Consequently, its employees do not hold civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, nor does the position of Secretary to the Managing Director qualify as a 'public office' for which a writ of mandamus can be issued. The petition was dismissed, affirming that constitutional protections for civil servants do not extend to employees of statutory corporations.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation entitled to the protection of Article 181 of the Constitution of 1956?
  • Does the post of Secretary to the Managing Director of a statutory corporation constitute a public office for the purposes of a writ of mandamus?
  • Is a statutory corporation considered a branch of the Central Government for the purpose of determining the status of its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Hossain Chowdhury and Another vs The State1971S C M R 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  special leave to appealenhancement of sentenceappreciation of evidencecriminal revisiongunshot injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court maintaining their convictions under sections 326 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and enhancing their sentences, while setting aside their convictions under section 147. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts and the legality of the enhancement of sentences by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court held that the evaluation of witness testimony and defence evidence by the courts below was proper and that isolation of stray statements could not discredit the consistent prosecution case. Furthermore, the High Court committed no illegality in enhancing the sentences. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the appreciation of evidence and the question of believing or disbelieving witnesses generally do not fall within the scope of interference by the apex court in a petition for special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether isolated statements of prosecution witnesses can discredit a consistent prosecution case when read as a whole?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the belief or disbelief of witnesses in a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Whether the High Court is legally competent to enhance sentences in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Wali vs The Crown1971 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1956-01-18
  murdercriminal appealdying declarationappreciation of evidenceeyewitness testimonycommon intentionmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan confirming the conviction and sentence of death under section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 of the Penal Code passed against the appellant, Shah Wali, by the Sessions Judge of Mianwali. The core legal question involved the appreciation and evaluation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the non-mention of the accused's names in early police reports, and the dying declaration implicating the appellant arising from a fatal shooting motivated by previous blood enmity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of a reliable and independent eyewitness, corroborated by a dying declaration and strong motive, was sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding discrepancies in early reports and the discounting of other witnesses. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions can safely rest on the testimony of a single trustworthy and consistent eyewitness corroborated by independent circumstances and a dying declaration, and the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent appreciation of facts by the lower courts unless perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness when other alleged eyewitnesses are discarded?
  • Does the omission of an accused person's name from early telephonic messages and the First Information Report necessarily vitiate a subsequent conviction based on a dying declaration?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the evaluation of ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1971 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-17
  illegal gratificationanticorruption trapappreciation of evidencespecial leave to appealplant of currency notes
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Station Master, was convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification, which conviction and reduced sentence were upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that his defence evidence regarding enmity and the planting of marked currency notes was not properly considered. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence and the plausibility of the defence plea in a corruption and trap case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact based on corroborative evidence—including the recovery of marked currency notes and a calculation sheet in the petitioner's own handwriting—were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court does not, as a rule, interfere with concurrent findings of fact that turn purely on the appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter?
  • Does the recovery of marked currency notes from the possession or control of an accused in a corruption trap shift the burden to offer a satisfactory explanation?
  • Whether a defence suggestion of planting currency notes due to enmity can be accepted when found improbable and unsupported by credible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafu Alias Shafi Muhammad vs The Crown1971 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1953-05-25
  retracted confessioncorroboration of confessioncriminal appealmurder convictionevidentiary valuemedical evidence contradictionfootprint identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction for murder and robbery, where the appellant challenged the confirmation of his death sentence by the Chief Court of Sind. The core legal question was whether the appellant's retracted judicial confession, which served as the primary evidence, was voluntary, credible, and sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the confession was inherently improbable, inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and lacked material corroboration. Specifically, the Court noted that the confession failed to mention the alleged sale of camel saddlery to prosecution witnesses, which the lower court had erroneously accepted as corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court discarded the evidence regarding footprint identification due to the significant delay and lack of procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a conviction unless it is consistent with established facts and corroborated in material particulars by reliable, independent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confession serve as the sole basis for a conviction without material corroboration?
  • Does a confession that contradicts medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries retain its evidentiary value?
  • Is identification evidence of footprints reliable when the witness relies solely on memory after a significant delay without prior preservation of the prints?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Munir Ahmad vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 Other1971 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-20
  appointment of receiverpartnership dissolutionrendition of accountsjudicial discretionpartnership business managementcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the appointment of a receiver in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioner, who managed the partnership business, challenged the appointment of a receiver, arguing that the property was already in the possession of a lessee and that the trial court improperly issued directions amounting to a dissolution order without first passing a preliminary decree. The Supreme Court examined whether the appointment of a receiver was justified given the circumstances of the partnership dispute and the management of the business. The Court held that the lower courts had exercised their discretion on sound judicial principles, noting that the receiver was necessary to protect the partnership business and that the trial court's subsequent directions were appropriate measures for such protection. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming that the appointment of a receiver is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when necessary to safeguard partnership assets pending litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a receiver in a partnership dissolution suit justified when the business is allegedly mismanaged?
  • Can a trial court issue directions to a receiver to protect partnership business before the passing of a preliminary decree?
  • Does the existence of a lessee in possession of the property preclude the appointment of a receiver for the partnership business?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Mohammad Hussain vs Malik Karam Dad Khan, Controlling1971 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-25
  election disputeChairman electionBasic Democracies Orderdisqualified memberlocal councilpresiding officerbail alternative or specific
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenges the legality of the election of respondent No. 3 as Chairman of a Union Committee, on the ground that a person whose election as a member had been declared without lawful authority by the High Court a day prior to the election participated and voted in the proceedings. The core legal question is whether the participation of a disqualified member vitiates the election of the Chairman, and whether Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, saves such election proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in the absence of authoritative communication or knowledge of the High Court's order to the Presiding Officer at the relevant time, the Presiding Officer was justified in continuing the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, is fully applicable to proceedings for holding elections to the office of Chairman, thereby preventing the proceedings from being invalidated due to the participation of a person not entitled to do so. The key principle laid down is that the protective umbrella of Article 39(4) cures procedural defects arising from the participation of disqualified persons in local council election proceedings where no authoritative notice of disqualification was available to the presiding authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the participation of a person whose membership was invalidated by a High Court order vitiates the election of a Union Committee Chairman when no authoritative notice reached the Presiding Officer?
  • Does Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 apply to proceedings for holding elections to the office of Chairman?
  • Does the existence of a vacancy or defect in the constitution of a local council invalidate its proceedings under Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Khursheed Mohammad vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1971 PLD Supreme Court 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-21
  displaced personsproperty transferquasi-judicial discretionallottee statusundisputed possessionremandsettlement law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions concerned whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner properly exercised his jurisdiction in disposing of miscellaneous applications and whether the appellant's status as a 'non-allottee' precluded him from claiming property. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner failed to exercise independent judgment by merely countersigning a subordinate's report, rendering the order invalid. Consequently, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Court established the principle that the distinction between an 'allottee' and a person in undisputed possession is legally irrelevant for transfer eligibility, as both stand on equal footing. Furthermore, a quasi-judicial authority must apply its own independent mind to the facts and cannot abdicate its decision-making duty by merely endorsing a subordinate's recommendation. The appellant, being in possession of a portion of the property, was entitled to have his claim for undisposed portions considered on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the distinction between an allottee and a person in undisputed possession hold legal significance for property transfer eligibility under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Is a quasi-judicial order valid if the deciding authority merely countersigns a subordinate's report without applying an independent mind to the merits?
  • Can a person in possession of a portion of a property claim the transfer of other undisposed portions of the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Hafiz Ullah vs Capt. Muhammad Mansib Ali Chaudhry and 2 Other1971 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-25
  ejectmenttenantspecial leave to appealstatutory noticeinterpretation of statutesCantonment Rent Restriction Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, and the Rent Controller's decision in an ejectment matter. The petitioner, a tenant occupying a shop in Sialkot and selling books, resisted an ejectment application filed under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 by the respondent auction-purchaser. The core legal question was whether a tenant selling books is entitled to a two-year statutory notice of eviction under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which protects premises dealing in sales or production of materials of books of educational and cultural values. The Supreme Court held that the protection afforded by the proviso is strictly limited to premises dealing in sales or production of materials of books, and does not extend to premises where only books are sold. The Court laid down the principle that plain statutory language, when unambiguous, must be given literal effect, and courts cannot rewrite provisions by deleting words such as 'materials'. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant selling books is entitled to a two-year notice of eviction under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does the protection afforded under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 extend to premises where only books are sold?
  • Can courts delete words from an unambiguous statutory provision to expand its scope during interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ghulam Mohammad and Another vs The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd.1971 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-12
  abatementlegal representativescondonation of delaylimitationcivil procedurediscretionary powerspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a High Court judgment that upheld the setting aside of an abatement in a civil suit for the recovery of a bank loan. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the legal representatives of a deceased defendant to be brought on record after the limitation period had expired, and whether a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was a mandatory prerequisite for condoning the delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was based on sound judicial principles, noting that the plaintiff had been hindered by a deliberate concealment of the defendant's death and the complexity of identifying fourteen legal representatives. The Court affirmed that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in accepting an oral application for condonation of delay, finding no arbitrary or capricious conduct. The principle laid down is that the absence of a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not preclude a court from considering and granting condonation of delay if the circumstances justify it and the discretion is exercised judicially.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 mandatory for the court to condone a delay in bringing legal representatives on record?
  • Can a court set aside an abatement of a suit based on an oral application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the concealment of a defendant's death by their relatives constitute sufficient ground for the plaintiff to seek the setting aside of an abatement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Anwar Ul Haq vs Miss Surraya Parveen and 2 Other1971 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-29
  review petitionsupreme court rulesadvocate appearancemaintainabilityprocedural requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, addressing the procedural requirement under Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules regarding who may draw and file a review petition. The core legal question considered was whether an advocate who assisted the lead counsel and was present at the hearing of the original appeal satisfies the requirement of being the advocate who appeared at the hearing, thereby being competent to draw the review petition. The Court held that any advocate who appeared at the hearing on behalf of a party, including an assisting counsel present during the proceedings, is competent to draw and file the review petition. The key principle laid down is that the appearance of an assisting advocate at the original hearing suffices to meet the mandatory representation requirement for filing a review petition under the applicable procedural rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an advocate who assisted lead counsel and was present at the hearing file a review petition under Order XXVI Rule 5?
  • Does the appearance of any advocate who represented a party at the original hearing suffice to fulfil the requirements for drawing a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sekandar Ali vs The State1971 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-30
  criminal petitionillegal gratificationbriberyappreciation of evidenceprevious acquittaltrap witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Sekandar Ali, who was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for demanding and accepting a bribe in his capacity as a Tehsildar. The petitioner was caught in a trap alongside his co-accused, with marked currency notes recovered from their possession. The core legal question addressed is whether the acquittal and evidence in a connected previous case can be used to influence the adjudication of the present distinct criminal charge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the present case stands or fails on its own evidence and that the judgment or evidence from a separate previous transaction is inadmissible for determining guilt or innocence in the current matter. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that the Supreme Court does not generally interfere with concurrent factual findings and appreciation of evidence by lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence and judgment from a connected previous case can be considered for the conviction or acquittal of an accused in a distinct criminal trial?
  • Does the Supreme Court entertain contentions relating merely to the appreciation of evidence by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Habib Khatoon and Other Mst. Habib Khatoon and Other1971 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-30
  civil reviewland settlementcompensation pooljurisdiction barpermanent settlementdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil review petitions filed against a previous judgment of the Supreme Court concerning land settlement and inheritance disputes. Allah Bakhsh, a displaced person, died leaving behind a widow, a son, and three daughters, including Mst. Habib Khatoon, whose name was initially omitted from the inheritance mutation. Upon revision, the Settlement Commissioner included Mst. Habib Khatoon as an heir and granted her a share in the estate. Subsequent purchasers of the land filed suits challenging the Settlement Commissioner's order. The core legal question was whether the civil suits were barred by section 25 of the Land Settlement Act, and whether the land had been permanently settled so as to take it out of the compensation pool. The Supreme Court held that since the settlement fees had not been paid, the allotment was never confirmed, and the land remained in the compensation pool, thereby attracting the bar under section 25 of the Land Settlement Act. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 25 of the Land Settlement Act bars civil suits challenging orders passed by settlement authorities when land remains part of the compensation pool?
  • Does the failure to pay settlement fees prevent the permanent settlement and confirmation of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959?
  • Can a review petition be entertained when there is no apparent error on the face of the judgment regarding the pendency of proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon and Another1971 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-18
  arbitration awardrendition of accountsrevisional jurisdictionincomplete awardspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which had accepted a revision petition and restored a trial court order making an arbitration award a rule of the court. Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the petitioner, wherein a pro forma defendant was also impleaded without any relief claimed against him. The parties referred the dispute to an arbitrator, who passed a decree against the petitioner but none against the pro forma defendant. The trial court made the award a rule of the court, but the Additional District Judge set it aside. The High Court reversed this decision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the arbitrator's award was incomplete and whether the High Court validly exercised revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator was justified in not granting relief against a party against whom no claim was made, rendering the award complete, and that the High Court rightly corrected the Additional District Judge's jurisdictional error under Section 115. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to interfere with an erroneous order of an Additional District Judge setting aside an arbitration award?
  • Does an arbitrator commit misconduct or render an award incomplete by failing to grant relief against a pro forma defendant when no relief was claimed against such defendant in the suit?
  • Is an arbitrator bound to determine a dispute between parties when there is no interpleader claim between them?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Mian Muhammad Saleem, District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 Other1971 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-27
  cantonment rent restrictiondefault of payment of renteviction applicationwaiver of forfeitureconstitutional petitionarrears of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether a previous default in rent payment, committed prior to the promulgation of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and subsequently wiped out by payment accepted by the landlord prior to filing an eviction application under the said Act, entitled the landlord to maintain the application. The Supreme Court held that since the landlord had already received and withdrawn the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant with mutual consent, there was no rent outstanding against the tenant at the time of filing the eviction application, and the landlord's acceptance of rent amounted to a waiver of forfeiture. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the eviction order set aside, laying down the principle that an eviction application for default of rent under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is not maintainable where no rent remains outstanding due to prior payment and acceptance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous default in rent payment wiped out by payment prior to an eviction application entitle a landlord to maintain an application under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Whether acceptance of previously deposited rent by a landlord constitutes a waiver of forfeiture of the lease?
  • Can a landlord maintain an eviction application under section 17(2)(i) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, when no rent is outstanding against the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Pervaiz vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and Another1971 PLD Supreme Court 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-06
  educational institutiontampering of recordsfraudulent admissionnatural justicedomestic tribunalburden of proofcancellation of result
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, whose intermediate examination result marks were found to be inflated, leading to his disqualification by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and the striking off of his name from King Edward Medical College, Lahore. The core legal questions involve whether a candidate's result can be quashed and penal action taken on mere suspicion and conjecture regarding the tampering of records, and whether an admission obtained through an incorrect statement of marks can be cancelled despite the lapse of time. The Supreme Court held that while domestic tribunals are not bound by strict judicial trial rules, a finding of guilt and penal disqualification cannot rest on mere conjectures or suspicion where direct evidence connecting the candidate to the tampering is lacking; however, an admission secured on the basis of an incorrect representation of marks is vitiated by fraud, and lapse of time does not sanctify such an action. The key principle laid down is that conjectures cannot replace legal proof in penal actions by domestic tribunals, but fraudulent misrepresentation in college admission forms lawfully justifies expulsion regardless of elapsed time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a domestic tribunal like an educational board penalize a candidate for tampering with records based solely on suspicion and the fact that he is a beneficiary?
  • Does the lapse of time sanctify an admission obtained through a fraudulent or incorrect representation of marks in a college application?
  • Must a domestic tribunal establish guilt through legal evidence before quashing a candidate's examination result for a mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Salehon and Another vs The State1971 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1957-10-28
  murderdeath sentenceadditional evidenceballistics expertappellate court powersexamination of accusedcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan confirming the conviction and death sentences of the appellants, Salehon and SaeeD, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Khan, while acquitting a co-accused, Nazra. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in permitting additional evidence, specifically the testimony of a Ballistics Expert, to be led at the appellate stage, and whether the failure to re-examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding such fresh evidence vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to admit additional formal and expert evidence to ascertain the truth without prejudicing the accused, and that no prejudice was caused by the lack of a fresh Section 342 examination since the core facts concerning the weapon were already put to the accused at trial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in allowing additional evidence to be led by the prosecution?
  • Does the failure to re-examine an accused person under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding additional appellate evidence vitiate the proceedings?
  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses requires corroboration before forming the basis of a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rahman and 2 Others vs A. H. Khan Niazi and Another1971 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-21
  review petitionlocus standiremandnecessary partieswrit petitionsettlement commissionerevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan disposing of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Additional Commissioner in review. The core legal question concerned the legality of review orders passed without impleading affected parties and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for fresh decision after setting aside the review orders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted properly in remanding the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision after joining all necessary parties, as disputed questions of fact regarding locus standi and property allotments required further examination on the basis of evidence. The key principle laid down is that where review orders are set aside due to non-joinder of necessary parties and procedural defects involving disputed questions of fact, remanding the case to the original authority for a proper decision in the presence of all affected parties is appropriate and legal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a case for a fresh decision after finding that necessary parties were not impleaded in review petitions?
  • Does a party lacking interest in specific disputed land properties possess the locus standi to apply for the review of an allotment order concerning those lands?
  • Can review orders adversely affecting parties made behind their backs be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Akbar and Another vs The State and 2 Others -- s1971 P Cr. L J 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28
  criminal law amendmentreference to tribunalleave to appealidentification evidencejurisdiction of ordinary courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, which dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging the reference of a criminal case to a tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963. The core legal question concerns whether the Commissioner's apprehension that identification evidence might not be believed by an ordinary court constitutes a valid and lawful ground under the statute for referring a case to a tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the point raised regarding the validity of the Commissioner's reasoning carries substance and merits full consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of transferring the case away from the ordinary courts of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the apprehension that identification evidence may not be believed in an ordinary court is a valid ground for referring a case to a tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963?
  • Can a criminal case be withdrawn from an ordinary court of law and referred to a special tribunal without a legally sustainable reason?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Syed Mohammad Matin Mirza vs Jehangir Rustamji1971 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-18
  second appealrent restrictionconcurrent findingsstriking off defencemisreading of evidencerent defaultpenal order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a rent restriction dispute where the High Court, in second appeal, set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding a tenant's default in rent payments. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact that were allegedly based on misreading of evidence, conjectures, and surmises. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to interfere because the lower courts had ignored material evidence and relied on unfounded assumptions regarding the tenant's alleged 'chronic default.' The Court affirmed that where lower courts fail to consider material evidence or base findings on conjectures, such findings are not immune from interference in second appeal. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that penal orders requiring rent deposits must be strictly construed, and that the Rent Controller must properly examine whether a default actually occurred, considering all relevant contentions, before striking off a defence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact if they are based on conjectures and misreading of evidence?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to strike off a tenant's defence for non-payment of rent without strictly complying with the legal requirements for such an order?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower courts immune from interference in second appeal if they ignore material evidence on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin Alias Saeeda vs The State1971 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-30
  Advocate-on-Recordprofessional misconductnon-prosecutionshow-cause noticelegal ethicsduty of counselSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the professional conduct of an Advocate-on-Record who failed to appear before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for the hearing of a petition for special leave to appeal, resulting in the petition's initial dismissal for non-prosecution. Upon the petition's restoration, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the advocate regarding his absence and failure to provide timely intimation of his inability to attend. The advocate offered an explanation that his client had retrieved the case papers, which the Court deemed unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court held that an Advocate-on-Record bears full responsibility for the prosecution of proceedings as the client's representative. The Court established the principle that notices are served upon the Advocate-on-Record, not the client; therefore, it is incumbent upon the advocate to attend to such notices or, if unable, to formally apply for discharge from the case. While the Court noted that such professional negligence could warrant removal from the roll of advocates, it opted to issue a formal warning in light of the advocate's repentance.

  Questions settled

  • What is the professional responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record regarding the prosecution of proceedings?
  • Is an Advocate-on-Record required to formally apply for discharge if unable to attend a court hearing?
  • Does the service of notice to an Advocate-on-Record satisfy the requirement of notice to the client?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State and Another1971 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-03
  disposal of propertyacquittalreturn of propertycriminal procedurediscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which accepted a revisional application and directed that the disputed cattle remain with respondent No. 2. The core legal question concerns the proper disposal of property seized during a criminal trial when the accused persons are subsequently acquitted of the charge under section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no compulsion to return property to the person from whom it was seized, as the provision grants discretion to the court to make such order for disposal as it thinks fit. The Court established that while the ordinary rule is to return property to the person from whom it was taken upon acquittal, exceptional circumstances may warrant a departure from this rule. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue civil remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal court under a legal compulsion to return seized property to the person from whom it was taken when the accused is acquitted?
  • Does Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 grant discretion to the court regarding the disposal of property upon the conclusion of a trial?
  • Can exceptional circumstances justify not returning seized property to the person from whose possession it was taken upon acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan Alias Sheno and Others vs The State and Other1971 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-23
  Frontier Crimes Regulationrepeal of statutefundamental rightsProvisional Constitution Orderabatement of proceedingsconfirmation of sentencenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court of West Pakistan, wherein the petitioners challenged their convictions and the confirmation of their sentences under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. The core legal questions centered on whether the confirmation of sentences after the repeal of the said Regulation was void, whether the F.C.R. became void due to inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, and whether writ petitions seeking enforcement of fundamental rights survived the abrogation of the Constitution and promulgation of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969. The Supreme Court held that pending proceedings could be continued and completed as if the repealing act had not been passed, pursuant to the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, and that upon the abrogation of fundamental rights under the Provisional Constitution Order, pending proceedings for their enforcement abated and the F.C.R. regained full operation. The Court laid down the principle that the validity of proceedings must be judged by the law in force at the time of adjudication, and the disappearance of fundamental rights revives the unclipped operation of previously challenged laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the confirmation of sentences under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 after its repeal is void ab initio?
  • What is the effect of the abrogation of fundamental rights and the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969 on pending writ petitions seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Does the repeal of a statute affect pending legal proceedings in respect of any liability under the West Pakistan General Clauses Act?
  • Can a new point regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice, not raised before the High Court, be permitted to be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs The State1971 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-15
  right of appealenhancement of sentenceacquittal set asidecriminal appealconstitutional rightmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the petitioner's acquittal for murder and convicted him under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, enhancing his sentence to transportation for life. The petitioner had originally been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, only under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court following the High Court's reversal of an acquittal and subsequent enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had a right of appeal under Article 58(2)(b) of the 1962 Constitution and Article 6(1)(a) of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1969. Relying on the precedent in Rashid Ahmad v. The State, the Court determined that the petition should be treated as a memorandum of appeal and registered as a direct appeal, thereby affirming the right of an accused to appeal when an acquittal is overturned by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court when the High Court reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused?
  • Under which constitutional provisions can a petitioner file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court following a High Court judgment enhancing a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• S. M. Fakhar Hussain and 6 Others vs Abdus Sattar and 4 Others1971 PLD Supreme Court 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-19
  evacuee propertybig mansionpublic auctionDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958Chief Settlement Commissionerex post facto approvalstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals challenging a High Court decision that declared the auction of a portion of "Bakhshi Market," an evacuee property, illegal. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could dispose of a portion of a property previously declared a "big mansion" under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, via public auction without declaring that specific portion a "big mansion" itself. The Supreme Court held that the auction was unauthorized and illegal. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions regarding the disposal of a "big mansion" are mandatory, requiring the entire property to be auctioned unless the government directs otherwise. The Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked the competence to auction a mere portion of a big mansion without first declaring that portion a big mansion. Furthermore, ex post facto approval by the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not cure the fundamental lack of legal authority to auction a portion of the property. The Court affirmed that the property remained available for lawful disposal by the Settlement Authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner dispose of a portion of a 'big mansion' by public auction without declaring that portion to be a 'big mansion'?
  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to dispose of a 'big mansion' by any method other than unrestricted public auction?
  • Can an ex post facto approval by the Chief Settlement Commissioner cure the lack of legal authority in the initial auction of a portion of a 'big mansion'?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Azizul Hassan and Another vs Malik Ghulam Muhammad1971 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-12-14
  revisional jurisdictionrejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11Section 115 CPCcompetency of revisionalternate remedy of appealdeed of association
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan in a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court had set aside an order of the trial court rejecting the respondent's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after examining the respondent under Order X Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The central legal issue was whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent in the High Court when an appeal against the decree or appealable order lay in the first instance to a subordinate court (such as the District Judge). Reaffirming its earlier precedent, the Supreme Court held that where an appeal is provided under the Code, whether directly to the High Court or to a lower appellate court, a revision before the High Court is incompetent. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent in the High Court when an appeal against the decree lies to an intermediate subordinate court?
  • Does the expression 'in which no appeal lies thereto' in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar revisional jurisdiction where an appeal lies to the District Judge?
  • Does an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a decree appealable under the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Anwar Hussain Sani., Malik Khushi Muhammad (Represented by 51971 PLD Supreme Court 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-13
  Permanent Transfer Deedfunctus officioSettlement authoritiesdemarcation of propertyevacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Rules 1961jurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals arising from orders of Settlement authorities modifying or clarifying Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds.) issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Supreme Court considered whether Settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to alter, re-demarcate, or determine ownership rights in properties after the issuance of P.T.Ds. The Court held that upon the issuance of a P.T.D., title passes to the transferee and the Settlement authorities generally become functus officio. Under Rules 4, 6, and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules 1961, Settlement authorities can only interfere post-issuance in limited circumstances: (1) to correct minor errors or omissions without formal adversary inquiry under the first part of Rule 6; or (2) to vary, amend, or cancel P.T.Ds. where transfer was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation after proper inquiry under the second part of Rule 6 or Rule 7. Where substantial re-demarcation or title disputes are involved without fraud or misrepresentation, Settlement authorities lack jurisdiction, and civil courts retain exclusive jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Do Settlement authorities become functus officio after a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) is issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Under what circumstances can Settlement authorities alter, modify, or cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed under Rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules 1961?
  • Does a dispute regarding substantial re-demarcation or title between transferees after the issuance of P.T.Ds. fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustom vs The State1971 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-16
  murderappreciation of evidenceocular testimonycriminal appealmiscarriage of justicerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction for murder and a sentence of death upheld by the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the ocular testimony was unreliable due to insufficient lighting at the scene, that the recovery of the incriminating hatchet was fabricated, and that the prosecution witnesses were biased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence to the extent that it resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appreciation of evidence is not the function of the Supreme Court unless a specific rule regarding the evaluation of evidence has been disregarded. Finding no such defect or grave miscarriage of justice, the Court affirmed the conviction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court does not function as an ordinary court of criminal appeal and will only interfere in matters of evidence if a fundamental error in the legal principles of appreciation has occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the appreciation of evidence by lower courts in a criminal case?
  • Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan an ordinary court of criminal appeal for the re-examination of facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ruqia Bibi and 5 Others vs Jalal Din and 8 Other1971 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-26
  abatement of appeallegal representativescondonation of delaysufficient causeprocedural negligencespecial attorneylimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, which refused to set aside the abatement of an appeal following the death of the original appellant, Haji Abdul Ghafoor. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone a delay of over one year in filing an application to bring legal representatives on record, despite the petitioners' claim that they were unaware of the pending appeal due to the alleged negligence of a special attorney. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of ignorance regarding the pending appeal was implausible, characterizing the failure to pursue the litigation as inexplicable negligence and carelessness. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no valid ground to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to set aside the abatement, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death of a principal terminates the authority of a special attorney to pursue an appeal?
  • Does the failure of legal representatives to bring themselves on record within the prescribed limitation period warrant the setting aside of an abatement?
  • Can a court refuse to condone a significant delay in filing an application for impleadment if the applicants fail to provide sufficient cause for their ignorance of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad Khan vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1971 SCMR 603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-19
  special leave petitiondisplaced persons land settlementtransfer of landdiscriminatory pricingmarket value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special lease arises from an order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner concerning the sale of agricultural land under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioner challenged the reasonableness of the land price and the reduction of the allotted area. The High Court partly allowed the petitioner's application by holding that charging a higher price compared to similarly situated allottees was discriminatory, but declined to interfere with the reduction of the area. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court and concluded that there was no legal infirmity in considering the relevant law and evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly ensured fairness and uniformity in terms for comparable cases and accordingly dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is required to maintain uniformity and reasonableness in pricing when selling land under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can the High Court interfere with the reduction of land area determined to be reasonably required by an allottee?
  • Whether differential pricing among similarly situated allottees in the same vicinity constitutes unfair discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Alias Lunda vs The State1971 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-01
  limitation periodcriminal appealreview petitiontime-barredstatutory limitationadmissibility of review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment that had upheld the petitioner's convictions under sections 458 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an inadmissible review petition in the High Court could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was hopelessly time-barred and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that review proceedings are not admissible in criminal matters under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the filing of an incompetent review petition cannot serve as a valid basis to extend the limitation period or create a fresh starting point for filing an appeal. The Court condemned the practice of filing such review petitions as a ruse to circumvent statutory limitation periods, establishing that time spent on legally impermissible proceedings does not toll the limitation period for subsequent appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Is a review petition admissible in criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent review petition be excluded from the limitation period for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does the dismissal of an inadmissible review petition create a fresh starting point for the limitation period for an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehm Ali and Another vs Mst. Bibi Ji Begum and Others1971 PLD Supreme Court 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-27
  revisional jurisdictioncode of civil procedurecall for recordtemporary injunctionjurisdictional errorremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave addresses whether the High Court, when exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is competent to reverse an order without calling for the record of the case. The core legal question revolves around whether calling for the record is a mandatory condition precedent to the exercise of revisional power. The Supreme Court held that section 115 is an enabling and discretionary provision, meaning that the High Court is not legally incompetent to exercise its revisional jurisdiction without calling for the record, provided the statutory jurisdictional conditions are met. However, the Court ruled that if material documents are missing and not furnished, it may lead to prejudice. In this case, because the High Court failed to call for the records and consequently overlooked crucial trial applications and an appellate affidavit, prejudice was caused. The Court laid down the principle that while calling for the record is not a condition precedent to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, acting without records where material documents are absent can occasion prejudice, warranting a remand for rehearing.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court competent to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure without calling for the record of the case?
  • Is calling for the record a condition precedent to the exercise of revisional power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the exercise of revisional jurisdiction without calling for the record render the resulting order without jurisdiction if material documents are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1971 PLD Supreme Court 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-27
  criminal breach of trustadditional evidencerebuttal evidenceright of defenseexamination of accusedprejudice to accusedretrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, an Agricultural Assistant, for criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, who, after the close of the prosecution case and the initial examination of the accused, recalled the complainants to rebut certain receipts produced by the defence. The trial court did not afford the appellant an opportunity to explain this additional evidence or to rebut the complainants' denial of the receipts, and proceeded to convict him. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether failing to provide the accused an opportunity to explain or rebut additional evidence brought on record by the court under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Supreme Court held that while receiving fresh evidence at a late stage is permissible, failing to give the accused an opportunity to rebut such evidence or be re-examined causes grave prejudice, rendering the trial irregular and unsustainable. The convictions were set aside and the cases remanded for retrial from that stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal court can receive fresh or additional evidence after both sides have closed their evidence?
  • Does the failure to give an accused an opportunity to rebut additional evidence brought on record by the court cause prejudice and vitiate the trial?
  • Must an accused be re-examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when additional evidence is recorded by the court after the close of the defense case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajoo vs The State1971 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-16
  murderhostile witnesstransferred evidencecorroborationcriminal appealSection 288 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a conviction for murder and related offences. The appellant was convicted of murdering his cousin after his marriage proposals were rejected by her and another relative. At trial, several prosecution witnesses resiled from their earlier statements made before the Committing Magistrate, likely due to familial ties. The core legal question was whether the trial court and High Court correctly relied upon the statements of witnesses transferred to the Sessions record under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the witnesses resiling at trial. The Supreme Court held that the transferred statements were admissible and constituted substantive evidence, particularly when corroborated by other evidence such as the recovery of blood-stained clothes and the established motive. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the lower courts correctly preferred the earlier, consistent statements over the testimony given at trial, which was clearly aimed at shielding the appellant. The principle established is that statements transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as valid substantive evidence for conviction when supported by corroborative circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements of witnesses recorded by a Committing Magistrate and transferred to the Sessions record under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as substantive evidence for conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses resile from their earlier statements at trial but the evidence is corroborated by other circumstances?
  • Does the recovery of human blood-stained clothes from an accused provide sufficient corroboration to support a conviction based on transferred witness statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Haq Nawaz vs Muhammad Afzal and 4 Other1971 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-06-23
  inherent powers of High Courtquashing of criminal proceedingsabuse of processfalse complaintvexatious litigationSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a High Court order quashing two criminal complaints filed by the appellant against the respondents under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash these proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was correct, as the complaints were demonstrably false, vexatious, and filed as a "counterblast" to previous failed litigation in Jhelum, intended solely to harass the respondents. The Court observed that the allegations were inherently improbable and lacked credibility. The key principle laid down is that while the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised sparingly to avoid circumventing the due process of law, the High Court is fully justified in quashing criminal proceedings where it is satisfied that the complaints are groundless, fabricated, and constitute an abuse of the court's process to subject the accused to unnecessary harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings that are found to be false and vexatious?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings solely to harass the accused constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Is it permissible for the High Court to consider the inherent improbability of allegations when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Raisuddin vs The State1971 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-17
  bail pending appeallimitation perioddiscretionary orderspecial leave to appealcriminal appealdelay in filing
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant bail pending appeal. The petition was filed four days beyond the limitation period. The Supreme Court found the explanation for this delay—difficulty in obtaining an attested vakalatnama from jail authorities—wholly unconvincing. On the merits, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretionary order denying bail. Addressing the petitioner's argument that the appeal might not be heard before the sentence is served, the Court held that criminal appeals are typically prioritized and disposed of within one to one and a half years. The Court affirmed that while a five-year sentence is not short, there is no presumption that an appeal will remain pending for the entire duration of the sentence. The petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to renew the bail application before the High Court if the appeal remains pending for an unreasonable duration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal excusable based on the time taken to obtain an attested vakalatnama from jail authorities?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order denying bail pending appeal without sufficient grounds?
  • Does the potential for a long delay in the disposal of a criminal appeal by the High Court automatically entitle a convict to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and 3 Others vs The State1971 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-29
  murderdeath sentencefirearm evidencecorroborationinterested witnessesalibiappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal where four petitioners were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of five persons across two incidents, and under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence, forensic corroboration relating to firearm empties, and the defense of alibi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the natural eye-witnesses were fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of weapons, and matching crime empties, and that the defense of alibi was rightly disbelieved by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving interested witnesses, general corroboration implicating the crime is sufficient, and individual corroboration for every single accused person is not strictly required when solid collective corroboration exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of interested eye-witnesses requires individual corroboration for each accused person?
  • Does minor discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular account vitiate a murder conviction?
  • Whether the High Court's appreciation of a plea of alibi can be interfered with when supported by sound reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafat Ali vs The State1971 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-17
  bail cancellationtampering with witnessescommittal to trialmurderspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the cancellation of the petitioner's bail by the High Court. The petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving offences under sections 302/149, 148, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge had initially granted bail to all thirteen accused, but the High Court cancelled the petitioner's bail on the grounds that he had abused the concession by threatening and assaulting prosecution witnesses and tampering with them. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail should remain granted or be interfered with when the accused has been subsequently committed to trial. The Supreme Court held that since the accused had been committed to trial in the Court of Session and a prima facie case had been found to exist, reasonable grounds appeared for believing the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, rendering the question of bail infructuous. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that committal to trial upon a finding of a prima facie case suffices to justify detention in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the committal of an accused to the Court of Session affect a pending petition regarding the grant or cancellation of bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled on the grounds of threatening and assaulting prosecution witnesses?
  • What is the effect of a finding by a committing Court that a prima facie case exists against an accused charged with a capital offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadar Bakhsh and 3 Others vs The State1971 PLD Supreme Court 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-31
  committal ordercommitting magistrateexamination of accuseddefence witnessespre-trial inquiryprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a committal order passed by the District Magistrate, Makran, committing the appellants to stand trial in the Court of Sessions at Kalat for murder and attempted murder. The appellants challenged the committal order on the grounds that they were not formally called upon to provide a list of defence witnesses, and that the committing Magistrate failed to record their statements as required under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the examination of an accused person by a committing Magistrate is mandatory before making a commitment order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the words 'if necessary' in Section 209 and 'if any' in Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer discretion on the committing Magistrate. The Court ruled that the committing Magistrate is not legally obligated to examine the accused before commitment, as the primary function of the inquiry is to determine if a prima facie case exists, not to assess the evidence or decide questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Is a committing Magistrate legally bound to examine an accused person under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before making a commitment order?
  • What is the legal effect of the words 'if necessary' in Section 209 and 'if any' in Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the examination of an accused?
  • Does the failure of an accused to file a list of defence witnesses in the committing court preclude them from doing so before the trial court?
  • Does Section 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the recording of an accused's statement by a committing Magistrate mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another vs Malik Asghar Khan1971 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-09-03
  temporary injunctionservice matterreversionbalance of convenienceirreparable lossprima facie casecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent, a government servant, challenging his reversion from the post of Forest Ranger to his original rank of Forester. The respondent sought a declaration that his reversion was void and applied for a temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial court and the District Judge but granted by a Single Judge of the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court was justified in granting the interim injunction. The Court reiterated the three basic requirements for granting temporary injunctions: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It held that granting temporary injunctions to government departments in service matters disrupts administrative functioning and should be avoided unless compelling reasons exist. Furthermore, no irreparable injury could be shown as any loss could be compensated monetarily if the respondent succeeded. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's rejection of the injunction.

  Questions settled

  • What are the three basic considerations that must be satisfied for the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted in a service matter where the alleged injury can be adequately compensated by monetary damages?
  • Does the balance of convenience favor granting an interim injunction that disrupts the administrative arrangements of a government department?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of East Pakistan vs Samiruddin and Other1971 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-25
  stay of executioninterim ordersmoney decreeleave to appealjudicial discretionland acquisitiondecretal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against interim orders passed by the High Court of East Pakistan regarding stay of execution in land acquisition cases under the Town Improvement Act, 1953. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted illegally or arbitrarily by granting a stay of execution conditional upon the deposit of the entire decretal amount and costs. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the High Court’s order was not legally defective. The Court affirmed that the filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution. Instead, a stay is an indulgence granted by the court, which may be subjected to reasonable conditions, such as the deposit of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court emphasized that it will not interfere with interim orders that do not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties unless such orders are shown to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, or whimsical. The practice of requiring security or deposits for stay of execution is well-established and judicially sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an appeal against an award or decree automatically operate as a stay of execution?
  • Can a court impose conditions, such as the deposit of the decretal amount, when granting a stay of execution?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of East Pakistan vs Messrs M. Ahmad & Sons and 2 Other1971 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-19
  arbitrationremoval of arbitratorappointment of arbitratorcivil revisionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Province of East Pakistan against a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan arising from a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute involved a contract for works executed by the respondents, where the named arbitrator failed to act upon a request for arbitration, prompting the respondents to file an application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for the removal of the arbitrator and the appointment of another. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court accepted the respondents' revision, removed the arbitrator, and remanded the case for the appointment of a new one. The Supreme Court considered whether the application was maintainable under Section 11 rather than Section 12 or Section 8. The Supreme Court held that the application was maintainable under Section 11, noted that the objection regarding the specific section could not be raised for the first time before the apex court, and declined to interfere on merits as a new arbitrator had already been appointed and entered upon the reference without objection. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for the removal of a named arbitrator is maintainable under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can a legal plea regarding the maintainability under a specific section of the Arbitration Act be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere in arbitral appointment matters when a new arbitrator has already been appointed and entered upon the reference without objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of East Pakistan and 2 Other vs Messrs Allawala & Co. and Others1971 PLD Supreme Court 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-26
  unauthorised occupanttransfer of propertylandlord and tenanteviction noticerules of businesssummary evictionexecutive authority
  Summary & questions settled

  These five appeals by special leave arose from a consolidated judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which had accepted writ petitions filed by monthly tenants challenging eviction notices and police action to lock up their premises. The core legal questions involved whether the tenants' monthly tenancies were validly determined under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 by an unauthorized officer, and whether such tenants fell within the definition of "unauthorised occupants" under section 2(c) of the East Bengal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Act 1952. The Supreme Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked the authority under the relevant Rules of Business to issue notices determining tenancies on behalf of the Provincial Government, and further held that a tenant whose initial entry was lawful does not become an "unauthorised occupant" under section 2(c) of the 1953 Act merely upon the determination of their tenancy. The key principles laid down are that executive powers and notice issuances on behalf of the government must strictly conform to the established Rules of Business, and summary eviction statutes cannot be extended to tenants whose initial occupation was lawful unless expressly provided by legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 issued by an officer not authorized under the Rules of Business is legally effective to terminate a government tenancy?
  • Does a monthly tenant whose tenancy has been determined qualify as an "unauthorised occupant" under section 2(c) of the East Bengal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Act 1952?
  • Can the Provincial Government summarily evict lawful tenants using the machinery of the East Bengal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Act 1952 prior to the valid determination of their tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Sarfraz Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Home Department, Lahore and 2 Other1971 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-09-02
  notary publicnatural justiceaudi alteram partemremoval from public officevested rightssaving clauseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenges a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which dismissed a constitutional petition against the termination of the appellant's appointment as a Notary Public. The core legal questions concerned whether a lawfully appointed Notary Public under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 could be removed without a show-cause notice, and whether the principles of natural justice applied. The Supreme Court held that the removal of a person holding a public office of profit affects their vested rights, and the power of removal must be exercised in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem, even if the statute does not expressly mention them. The ratio is that an administrative authority cannot remove an incumbent from a public office without affording an opportunity to show cause against the action. The Court laid down the principle that the right to earn a livelihood by legitimate means cannot be taken away without notice and hearing, and statutory powers of removal are coupled with a duty to act fairly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the removal of a Notary Public attract the application of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a person holding a public office of profit be deprived of their office without being afforded an opportunity to show cause?
  • Do savings provisions protecting prior appointments under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 preclude arbitrary removal by the government?
  • Whether administrative authorities can introduce a new ground for removal during judicial proceedings that was not pleaded in their initial counter-affidavit?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Saleh Shah and 6 Others vs The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Pakistan, Lahore and Another1971 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-31
  evacuee propertynon-evacuee propertysuppression of material factsfraudlimitationwrit petitionoccupancy tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the appellants' writ petition in limine regarding agricultural lands claimed to be non-evacuee property. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants were entitled to a declaration that the disputed lands were not evacuee property despite earlier dismissed applications, subsequent inordinate delay, and the suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had attempted to practice fraud by concealing the dismissal of their earlier 1948 applications when filing fresh applications in 1960 for the same lands, and that the 1960 applications were heavily barred by time as the lands had been treated as evacuee property since 1948. The Court affirmed that litigants seeking equitable relief from courts or tribunals must come with clean hands, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of the dismissal of earlier applications for a declaration of non-evacuee property amounts to practicing fraud disentitling a party to relief?
  • Are applications filed under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, barred by time when the property was treated as evacuee property years prior?
  • Does a change in the alleged status of tenancies from occupancy to non-occupancy allow a party to circumvent the finality of previous adverse orders regarding the same land?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Rashid-Ud-Daula and 3 Others vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan1971 PLD Supreme Court 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-26
  waqf propertypith and substancerepugnancyshrineofferingsimmemorial userAuqafretrospective legislationlegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan pertained to the takeover of the shrine of Hazrat Shah Daula Sahib of Gujrat, including its mosque, offerings, and income boxes, by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The appellants, lineal descendants (Pirzadgan) of the saint, challenged the legislative competence of the Governor to enact the Ordinance without the President's prior instructions and asserted that the shrine's income and offerings constituted their private, inherited property based on immemorial user. The Supreme Court held that the West Pakistan Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1961 (replacing the 1959 Ordinance) was validly enacted with the President's assent and effectively validated past actions retroactively. On the merits, the Court ruled that while long-standing user of the shrine by the public established it as a public waqf, cash offerings historically appropriated as private inheritance were not waqf under Muslim law; however, the Legislature possessed valid statutory power to impress future box offerings and subscriptions with the character of waqf property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Governor of a Province had the legislative competence under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order 1958 and the Constitution of 1956 to promulgate a provincial Ordinance touching upon subjects in the Concurrent List without the previous instructions of the President?
  • Can a provincial legislature enact retrospective legislation validating actions previously taken under an earlier invalidated or repealed law?
  • Whether long-standing, unrestricted public access and user of a shrine and its attached facilities can give rise to a legal presumption of dedication as a public waqf under Islamic law?
  • Can voluntary offerings and cash put into donation boxes at a shrine be statutorily declared as waqf property by the legislature?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Rehabilitation & Works, Islamabad. and Another vs H. H. Ahmed1971 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-26
  requisition of propertycompensation claimcivil suit maintainabilitygovernment liabilityleave to appealrepresentative capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree awarding compensation to the respondent for the use and occupation of his requisitioned house. The core legal questions addressed were whether compensation was erroneously awarded beyond the date of vacation of the premises, whether a civil suit was barred due to the existence of a special procedure under the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, and whether a decree could be legally passed against the Secretary of the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the record did not support the claim that compensation was awarded beyond the vacation date. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the civil suit was maintainable because the government had failed to appoint a Tribunal or Arbitrator to adjudicate compensation claims. Finally, the Court clarified that the Secretary was joined only in a representative capacity for the Central Government and was not personally liable under the decree. The judgment affirms that the absence of a designated statutory forum allows for civil litigation regarding compensation claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a special procedure under the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, bar a civil suit for compensation if no Tribunal or Arbitrator has been appointed?
  • Can a decree be passed against a government official in their representative capacity without imposing personal liability?
  • Is a civil suit for compensation maintainable against the government when the statutory mechanism for determining such compensation has not been activated?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan and Another vs Mohammad Ali1971 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-06-10
  railwaysbaileeloss of goodsrunning train theftdamagesburden of proofnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a suit for damages brought by the respondent against the Railway Administration for the non-delivery of a bale of textile goods booked for transit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the Railway Administration had proved it acted as a prudent bailee and that the loss occurred due to a running train theft. The first appellate court reversed the decision, and the High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and concluded that the first appellate court's findings were based on unwarranted speculation and overlooked overwhelming oral and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court held that the Railway Administration had made a full and true disclosure of all circumstances relating to the transit and successfully discharged its burden of proof as a bailee under section 72 of the Railways Act. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • What is the nature of responsibility of a Railway Administration in the matter of the carriage of goods under the Railways Act?
  • How can a Railway Administration absolve itself from responsibility for the loss of a consignment in transit?
  • Whether the High Court or appellate court can disturb concurrent or factual findings supported by ample oral and documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• N_a vs In re _ Arif Nizami and 2 Others1971 PLD Supreme Court 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contempt of courtscandalizing the courtfreedom of the pressvicarious liabilityjudicial independenceapology in contemptnewspaper liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the Editor, Printer, Publisher, and Staff Reporter of a newspaper for publishing a false news item alleging that proceedings were initiated against a Supreme Court Judge. The core legal questions concerned whether such a publication constitutes contempt of court, the extent of liability of newspaper personnel, and the legal effect of an unconditional apology. The Court held that the publication constituted gross contempt by scandalizing a Judge and undermining public confidence in the judiciary. It affirmed that Editors, Printers, and Publishers are strictly liable for all content published under their control, regardless of personal knowledge, and that the author of the report is liable for negligence. The Court established that while an apology is a mitigating factor for sentencing, it does not absolve the contemners of liability or provide an absolute defense. Consequently, the Court convicted the respondents, imposing fines while acknowledging their apologies as a factor for leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the publication of a false news item suggesting a Judge is facing removal proceedings constitute contempt of court?
  • Are the Editor, Printer, and Publisher of a newspaper vicariously liable for contemptuous content published in their newspaper?
  • Can an unqualified apology serve as an absolute defense to a charge of contempt of court?
  • Is a staff reporter liable for the publication of a false news item even if they claim the inclusion of a specific name was a mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Nura and Another vs The State1971 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-26
  murderacquittal appealocular testimonyidentification by torchlightFirst Information Reportweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants by the trial court and convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to transportation for life for the murder of one Sohney Khan. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony, the identification of the accused on a dark night via torchlight, the prompt lodging of the First Information Report, and the corroborative value of a weapon recovery. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appraised the evidence, noting that the testimony of independent witnesses, prompt FIR mentioning the torchlight, and the medical and recovery evidence firmly established the guilt of the appellants, while the trial court's acquittal was based on erroneous assumptions. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal based on minor omissions, such as the failure to produce a torch at the police station or speculative inferences about strained relations between co-accused, is perverse and liable to be reversed when ocular and corroborative evidence is otherwise natural and trustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal by a trial court can be set aside by the High Court based on a correct appraisement of ocular and corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce a torch at the police station at the time of lodging the First Information Report render the identification of the accused under torchlight doubtful?
  • Can the testimony of independent eyewitnesses be discarded merely because they did not attempt to physically apprehend the armed culprits at the spot?
  • Whether a subsequent afterthought statement regarding strained relations between co-accused is sufficient to negate a prior admission of relationship in the committing court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad and Another vs Falak Sher and 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-10
  murderacquittalappreciation of evidenceinterested witnessespre-existing enmitycriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which had set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted them. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and circumstantial evidence in a case marked by severe pre-existing enmity between the parties and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was justified, noting that long-standing blood feuds rendered the prosecution's narrative of the deceased willingly accompanying an accused highly improbable, and that physical obstacles such as a compound wall cast grave doubt on the eyewitnesses' ability to view the incident. The key principle laid down is that where appellate scrutiny reveals plausible reasoning, material contradictions in interested witness accounts, and reasonable doubts stemming from physical constraints and pre-existing enmity, an order of acquittal by the High Court will not be interfered with by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal passed by the High Court calls for interference when based on plausible reasoning and material contradictions in the evidence?
  • How does a long-standing pre-existing enmity between the complainant party and the accused affect the credibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the initial movement of the deceased?
  • Does the existence of a compound wall obstructing the line of sight create a reasonable doubt regarding the testimony of eyewitnesses claiming to have witnessed a murder from a distance?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Mohammad and Another vs Malik Chiragh Din and 2 Other1971 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-22
  dispute concerning landbreach of peaceattachment of propertyinitial orderjurisdictionprocedural irregularitycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for Special Leave to Appeal arose from a consolidated order of the High Court dismissing criminal revisions and miscellaneous applications regarding proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning a property dispute over godowns. The core legal question was whether the initial order of the Magistrate was without jurisdiction for failing to explicitly state satisfaction regarding an apprehension of a breach of the peace, and whether attachment of the property was justified. The Supreme Court held that the existence of the necessary elements establishing jurisdiction cured any formal defect in the Magistrate's initial order, rendering it a procedural irregularity rather than a jurisdictional illegality. The Court laid down the principle that where elements founding jurisdiction genuinely exist, a Magistrate's failure to strictly comply with form or record grounds of satisfaction does not vitiate the entire proceedings. The petitions were dismissed, noting that the parties' titles should be resolved in pending civil court proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to explicitly state his satisfaction regarding an apprehension of a breach of the peace in an initial order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure render the entire proceedings without jurisdiction?
  • Does a formal defect in the initial order of a Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate the proceedings where the necessary jurisdictional elements exist?
  • What is the effect of pending civil court proceedings on an order passed by a criminal court under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin Ahmad vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax and 3 Other1971 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-04
  sales taxduty-paid valuerefund of taxCentral Board of Revenue circularretrospective effectalternative remediesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenges a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed against the refusal of a sales tax refund. The appellant, an exporter of fresh fish to West Bengal, had paid sales tax based on the duty-paid value determined under the Sea Customs Act. Subsequently, relying on a Central Board of Revenue circular that permitted treating the actual repatriated sale price as the duty-paid value, the appellant sought a refund of excess sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the application after the circular was superseded. The Supreme Court held that the Central Board of Revenue's administrative directives under the Sales Tax Act cannot alter statutory provisions or be applied retrospectively to change the definition of duty-paid value for past exports, nor can such circulars bind appellate authorities. Furthermore, the Court noted that the constitutional petition ought to have been dismissed for failure to exhaust alternative statutory remedies and for laches. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a directive issued by the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 alter the statutory definition of duty-paid value?
  • Whether a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue can be given retrospective effect to govern past exports?
  • Does a directive of the Central Board of Revenue bind the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in view of the proviso to section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act 1951?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the aggrieved party has failed to exhaust alternative statutory remedies of appeal and revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1971 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-12
  appreciation of evidencespecial leave to appealeyewitness testimonyfirst information reportcriminal convictionmurderballistics evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of Haji Gul, alongside a conviction under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The prosecution case relied on eyewitness testimony and the recovery of a pistol from the petitioner at the scene. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming he was falsely implicated following a prior altercation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts and the ballistics report, which indicated the recovered weapon did not match the crime empties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the discrepancies raised were not material to the veracity of the witnesses and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts did not suffer from any flagrant disregard of legal rules. The Court reaffirmed the principle that it does not undertake a re-appreciation of evidence unless a clear legal defect is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court undertake a re-appreciation of evidence in a criminal appeal?
  • Is the first information report considered substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does a discrepancy in the origin of crime empties necessarily invalidate eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir vs Amir Din and Another1971 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-10-19
  bail cancellationrevisional jurisdictionhabeas corpuscriminal procedurewitness tamperingsubordinate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave was directed against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan which cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Lyallpur. The appellant had been accused of burglary and dacoity under the Penal Code. The High Court cancelled the bail on the sole ground that a recovery witness reported receiving threats from the appellant. However, the record showed that the alleged threats relied upon in the revision petition before the High Court were new allegations that occurred after the Sessions Judge's order and had never been presented to the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the High Court has original power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court that granted the bail should first be moved on any new grounds for cancellation. By-passing the subordinate court and raising fresh grounds for the first time in a revision petition is an improper procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's cancellation order.

  Questions settled

  • Can new grounds for cancellation of bail, which were never presented to the subordinate court that granted bail, be raised for the first time in a revision petition before the High Court?
  • Should the court that originally granted bail be moved first before seeking cancellation of bail on fresh grounds?
  • Does the High Court's original power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify by-passing the subordinate court when new facts arise?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The State1971 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-07
  criminal liabilitymens reaguilty knowledgepossession of narcoticscharas recoverytaxi drivercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which upheld the conviction of the appellant, a taxi driver, under Section 61 of the Excise Act of 1914, after four seers of charas were recovered from the rear seat of his taxi following the escape of his two passengers. The core legal question was whether a taxi driver's knowledge of contraband carried by passengers can be legally presumed solely from the circumstances of night travel along a lonely road without cogent evidence of guilty knowledge or mens rea. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that criminal conviction requires proof of guilty knowledge or mens rea, and no legal presumption of knowledge can be attached to a taxi driver merely because he transported passengers carrying packages at an odd hour along a less frequented road. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish guilty knowledge through cogent evidence, and convictions cannot rest on conjectures, hypothetical assumptions, or absolute liability without statutory backing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a taxi driver can be presumed to have knowledge of contraband goods carried by passengers merely because he transported them at night along a less frequented road?
  • Is it an essential ingredient of a criminal act that mens rea or guilty knowledge must be established by the prosecution before a conviction can take place?
  • Does the mere finding of contraband in the back seat of a taxi suffice to prove possession and guilty knowledge on the part of the driver?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and Others vs Ijaz Ali and Other1971 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-21
  Section 145 CrPCappointment of receivercivil court vs criminal courtpossession disputequashment of proceedingsspecial jurisdictionagricultural land dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over agricultural land leased by the Evacuee Trust Board. The petitioners, claiming to be actual tillers, faced potential ejectment and initiated proceedings against the respondents. Following a failed writ petition, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leading to the attachment of the land and the appointment of a receiver by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, wherein the civil court also appointed a receiver. The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 561-A and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that the civil court's appointment of a receiver rendered the criminal court's appointment redundant. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in its special jurisdiction. The Court held that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was not to seek quashment of the criminal proceedings, but to approach the Assistant Commissioner under Section 146(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to request the transfer of possession to the receiver appointed by the civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek the quashment of Section 145 CrPC proceedings when a civil court has already appointed a receiver for the same property?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when a criminal court and a civil court both appoint receivers for the same disputed property?
  • Does the appointment of a receiver by a civil court automatically invalidate an existing receiver appointment made by a criminal court under Section 145 CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Basic Democracies, Social Welfare and Local Government Depart Ment, Lahore1971 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-12-23
  reduction in ranklocal council servicecivil postprovisional appointmentconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Lahore dismissing in limine the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging his reversion from the Class II (Senior) Cadre to the Class II (Junior) Cadre of the Local Council Service. The core legal questions relate to whether the withdrawal of a provisional appointment and pay scale constitutes a reduction in rank, whether a writ petition is maintainable under Article 98 of the Constitution, and whether employees of the Local Council hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province under Article 177 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a provisional appointment or provisional allowance of a pay scale pending final absorption creates no vested right, and its withdrawal does not amount to a reduction in rank. Furthermore, the Court held that Local Council employees do not hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province so as to attract constitutional safeguards regarding notice, and no petition under Article 98 lay as there was no breach of terms and conditions relating to remuneration or superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a provisional order allowing a higher pay scale amount to a reduction in rank?
  • Whether an officiating or provisional appointment gives the appointee a vested right to the post?
  • Does an employee in the service of a Local Council hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Centre or of a Province under Article 177 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution lies against the withdrawal of a provisional appointment where no terms and conditions regarding remuneration or superannuation are breached?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Lahore Ltd. vs Custodian of Evacuee Property and 5 Other1971 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-03-17
  enemy alienenemy propertyCustodian of Enemy Propertywrit petitionlocus standiremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the Custodian of Evacuee Property's order declaring the appellant and its property as evacuee. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant had become an enemy alien under the Enemy Property (Custodian and Registration) Order 1965, thereby losing locus standi, and refused to permit the Custodian of Enemy Property to continue the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether the Custodian of Enemy Property has the legal standing to continue a pending writ petition on behalf of an enemy alien. The Court held that under Paragraph 4(2)(iv) of the Enemy Property (Custodian and Registration) Order 1965, the Custodian is expressly empowered to institute, defend, or continue any suit or other legal proceedings, which includes writ petitions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for disposal on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Custodian of Enemy Property have the legal authority to continue a writ petition pending on behalf of an entity that has become an enemy alien?
  • Whether a writ petition falls within the scope of 'other legal proceedings' which the Custodian of Enemy Property is empowered to continue under the Enemy Property (Custodian and Registration) Order 1965?
  • Can a court refuse to allow the Custodian of Enemy Property to continue legal proceedings involving enemy property on the ground that the original petitioner became an enemy alien?
  Read full judgment →
• Pindi Hazara Mining Company vs Government of West Pakistan and 21971 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-03-04
  mining taxlocal government taxationstatutory authoritydouble taxationmineral developmentrepeal of statuteBasic Democracies Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a tax levied by the District Council, Rawalpindi, on the quarrying and extraction of stone and aggregate. The appellant, a mining company, contended that the local council lacked authority to impose the tax, arguing it was a central subject and that the levy constituted impermissible double taxation. Furthermore, the appellant challenged the legality of the tax, asserting that the enabling legislation, the West Pakistan Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development Act of 1958, had been repealed, leaving the levy without statutory cover. The Supreme Court held that the Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act of 1948, as adopted by President's Order No. 1 of 1964, provided the necessary legal authority for the Provincial Government to empower the District Council to impose such taxes. The Court determined that the repeal of the 1958 Act did not invalidate the tax because the 1948 Act remained in force, providing sufficient statutory backing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the tax levy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the West Pakistan Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development Act of 1958 invalidate taxes imposed under it if other enabling legislation remains in force?
  • Does the Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act of 1948 provide sufficient statutory authority for the Provincial Government to authorize local councils to levy mining taxes?
  • Is the imposition of a local tax on mining activities considered double taxation when the lessee is already paying rents and royalties to the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Nakuleswar Sikdar vs Barun Chandra Chakravorty and Another1971 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-29
  limitationcondonation of delayspecial leave to appealtime-barred petitioncommencement of limitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's erroneous belief that the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave commenced from the date of the signing of the decree constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Court held that the petition was barred by 20 days and dismissed it, finding the explanation for the delay inadequate. The Court clarified that the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal begins to run from the date of the delivery of the judgment, not the date of the signing of the decree. While the time spent obtaining a copy of the decree may be considered for condonation, the petitioner must satisfactorily explain each day of delay. Because the petitioner failed to provide a valid explanation for the period following the receipt of the certified copy, the Court refused to condone the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal commence from the date of the judgment or the date of the signing of the decree?
  • Is a copy of the decree required to be filed along with a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Can the time spent obtaining a copy of the decree be considered for the purpose of condoning delay in filing a petition for special leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Finance Ltd. and Another., DR. Muhammad Sharif Muttaqi., Ch.1971 PLD Supreme Court 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-15
  misfeasance proceedingsinsurance companymanaging director liabilitylimitation periodexpress trusteebreach of trustsummary procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of multiple civil appeals directed against a judgment of the West Pakistan High Court passed under section 106 of the Insurance Act 1938, concerning misfeasance, misappropriation, and breach of trust by the Managing Director, directors, and third-party contractors of the Muslim Insurance Company Limited. The core legal questions involved the scope and procedure of section 106 of the Insurance Act 1938, the applicability of the Limitation Act 1908 to summary misfeasance proceedings, the status of company directors as express trustees under section 10 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the extent of liability of delinquent directors and agents. The Supreme Court held that proceedings under section 106 are in the nature of summary misfeasance inquiries governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of High Court rules, that claims enforced thereunder must be legally recoverable and not time-barred, and that directors are not trustees under section 10 of the Limitation Act 1908 but are governed by Article 90 thereof. The Court modified the High Court's judgment by scaling down the rate of interest to 6% per annum with half-yearly rests, allowing relief regarding time-barred claims, and adjusting individual liabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under section 106 of the Insurance Act 1938 are subject to the law of limitation?
  • Are directors of a company considered trustees for the purpose of section 10 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to suits or applications by a principal against a managing director for neglect or misconduct?
  • Whether a time-barred claim can be enforced through summary proceedings under section 106 of the Insurance Act 1938?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Mirza and Others vs Haji Rashiduddin and 2 Other1971 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-20
  ejectment proceedingslandlord and tenantnon-payment of rentcause of actionmaintainability of applicationspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three civil petitions for special leave to appeal arising from ejectment proceedings against tenants of the Aulia Building in Karachi. The tenants (petitioners) faced two sets of ejectment applications by the landlords (respondents): one based on property reconstruction and a subsequent one based on non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller allowed both applications, and these orders were upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by a Single Judge of the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the second set of applications (for non-payment of rent) was not maintainable because an earlier ejectment order based on reconstruction was already under appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting it was not raised before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court held that there is no legal bar preventing a landlord from filing a subsequent ejectment application against a tenant based on a different cause of action, even if prior proceedings are pending. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord file a subsequent ejectment application against a tenant based on a different cause of action while prior ejectment proceedings are pending?
  • Is a legal contention that was not raised before the High Court permissible to be raised for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Alias Mushtaq Hussain and 8 Others vs Mst. Hakim Bibi1971 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-10
  review petitionlife estateproprietary rightstenant granteeinheritanceSupreme Court Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 23rd of May 1969, which had affirmed the High Court's decision holding that the predecessor-in-title of the respondent held a life estate under a family arrangement that ripened into ownership rights upon acquisition of proprietary rights from the Government. The core legal questions revolved around whether a life estate-holder was qualified to acquire proprietary rights in the disputed land under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act of 1893, and whether newly urged evidence regarding a revenue record entry made any difference. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the tenant holding the land at the time of the acquisition of proprietary rights was alone entitled to acquire them, and that the petition was entertainable with the presence of the junior counsel complying with the Supreme Court Rules. The key principle laid down is that a life estate-holder who is the recorded tenant at the time of acquiring proprietary rights from the Government is entitled to such acquisition, and that review petitions cannot be used to re-litigate matters already fully considered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a life estate-holder of land is qualified to acquire proprietary rights in the land under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act of 1893?
  • Does the presence of a junior counsel who assisted at the hearing of the appeal satisfy the requirement of Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for a review petition?
  • Can a review petition be entertained to re-argue points that were fully considered and adjudicated upon during the hearing of the original appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Munshi Muhammad and Another Ifhamullah Khan vs Faizanul Haq and Another Faizanul Haq and 2 Other M. Arif, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed By Ejaz Ahmad Khan,1971 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-30
  special leave to appealauction-purchaserlocus standiwrit jurisdictionsettlement authoritiestransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by unsuccessful auction-purchasers challenging the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court. The core legal question was whether highest bidders in a public auction, whose bids were not finally approved by the competent authority, possess the requisite locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition against the transfer of the subject property to another party. The Supreme Court held that since the auction bids were expressly subject to approval which was ultimately withheld, the petitioners acquired no vested right or interest in the auctioned properties and thus lacked locus standi. The Court affirmed that the discretionary power of the settlement authorities to approve or reject auction bids is not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless shown to be arbitrary or fanciful. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the highest bidder in a public auction acquires any vested right in the property before the final approval of the bid by the competent authority?
  • Does an auction-purchaser whose bid has not been approved possess the locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property in writ jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances is the exercise of discretion by settlement authorities regarding the approval of auction bids amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Munshi Etc. vs Bagga Etc.S1971 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-05
  special leave to appealsettlement authoritieslimitationnecessary partiesconstitutional petitionland allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which set aside an order dismissing a constitutional petition and remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question involved whether the High Court correctly interfered with the orders of Settlement Authorities where an appeal was decided without addressing the critical issue of limitation and where necessary parties were not properly brought on record. The Supreme Court held that the Letters Patent Bench committed no legal defect in its judgment, affirming that the question of limitation had to be decided and that joint-allottee heirs must be formally made parties and served. The key principle laid down is that appellate authorities must determine questions of limitation and ensure all necessary parties are duly represented before disposing of matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate settlement authority is required to decide the question of limitation before dismissing an appeal?
  • Can an appeal proceed effectively without formally bringing the legal heirs of a deceased joint-allottee on the record and serving them?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for rehearing upon finding procedural defects in the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipalcommittee, Nankana Sahib through Its Chairman vs Abdul1971 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-16
  Section 144 CrPCpublic tranquilitymunicipal committeeprivate marketprohibitory orderspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that set aside a prohibitory order issued by the S.D.M. Nankana Sahib under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, the Municipal Committee, had sought to prohibit the respondents from operating a private market for the wholesale sale of fruits and vegetables, claiming it was unauthorized. The core legal question was whether the S.D.M. was justified in invoking Section 144, Cr. P. C. to prevent the respondents' business activities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that previous disputes between the parties had been resolved through a compromise and discharge order, thereby eliminating any genuine apprehension of a disturbance of public tranquility or affray. The Court held that Section 144 cannot be used to protect the commercial interests of a municipal market against private competitors. The key principle established is that the extraordinary powers under Section 144, Cr. P. C. are reserved for preventing public disorder and cannot be utilized as a tool for regulatory enforcement or protecting municipal commercial interests.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to protect the commercial interests of a municipal market?
  • Is an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified when there is no apprehension of a disturbance of public tranquility?
  • Does the quashing of an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude a municipal committee from prosecuting a party for operating an unauthorized market under other applicable laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Jhelum vs Maulvi Muhammad Shafi1971 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-28
  temporary injunctionres judicatanon-prosecutionstatus quocivil revisionrestoration application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner, Municipal Committee, Jhelum, from constructing on a disputed plot of land. The trial court's temporary injunction was vacated by the District Judge, but the respondent subsequently obtained an interim status quo order from the High Court. The petitioner challenged this interim order, arguing that the respondent's second application for a temporary injunction was barred by res judicata and limitation after the dismissal of his first application for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the dismissal of an interim application for non-prosecution does not trigger res judicata. Applying Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court ruled that the procedure for suits applies to miscellaneous applications, allowing the filing of a fresh application under Order IX, Rules 3 and 4. The Court declined to interfere with the interim order but directed the High Court to decide the main revision petition within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a temporary injunction application for non-prosecution bar the filing of a subsequent application on the principle of res judicata?
  • Which provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 govern the restoration or refiling of a miscellaneous application dismissed for default in a revision proceeding?
  • Is a second application for temporary injunction competent after the first has been dismissed for failure to deposit process fees?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali vs The State1971 PLD Supreme Court 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-28
  stolen propertyguilty knowledgepresumption of possessionEvidence Actcriminal appealdishonest retentionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for dishonestly receiving and retaining a stolen bicycle. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s possession of the bicycle, discovered two years after the theft, warranted a conviction and whether the presumption of guilty knowledge under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872 was applicable. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that possession of stolen property is not an offence unless accompanied by proof of guilty knowledge or reason to believe the property was stolen. The Court established that the presumption of 'recent possession' under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872 does not apply when there is a significant time lapse between the theft and the discovery of possession. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an accused cannot be convicted merely because their explanation is disbelieved; the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case of guilty knowledge. Mere possession without evidence of dishonest intent is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 411.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of stolen property constitute an offence in the absence of guilty knowledge?
  • Can the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872 be applied when there is a significant time lapse between the theft and the discovery of possession?
  • Is an accused liable to be convicted solely because the court disbelieves their explanation regarding the acquisition of property?
  • What constitutes 'recent possession' of stolen property for the purpose of invoking the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 Others vs Government of West Pakistan1971 PLD Supreme Court 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-29
  recruitment rulesspecial recruitment schemestatutory force of Governor's orderenforceability of government offerwrit jurisdictionpublic service commissioncontractual obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, selected for training and subsequent appointment as Assistant Agricultural Engineers under a special scheme approved by the Governor, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition. The core question was whether the appellants, having completed the prescribed training, were required to undergo a fresh selection process by the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that the Governor's order approving the special scheme had the force of statutory rules, effectively modifying the existing recruitment rules for these specific posts. Consequently, the government’s offer of appointment, accepted by the appellants, constituted a binding and enforceable agreement. The Court ruled that the appellants, having fulfilled the conditions of their training, were entitled to appointment without appearing again before the Public Service Commission. The key principle laid down is that a Governor's order authorizing a specific recruitment method operates with statutory force, and government undertakings made pursuant to such authority are legally binding and cannot be unilaterally altered to the prejudice of candidates who have acted upon them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Governor's order approving a special recruitment scheme possess the force of statutory rules?
  • Can a government department unilaterally impose a requirement for fresh selection by the Public Service Commission after a candidate has already been selected and completed training under a specific scheme?
  • Is an offer of employment made by the government, which is accepted by candidates who then fulfill the conditions, an enforceable agreement?
  • Can a condition in an employment offer reserving the right not to provide a job be read in isolation to negate the primary offer of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State and 3 Other1971 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-01
  murderacquittalspecial leave to appealeye-witness reliabilitymedical evidencechance witnessesextra-judicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a murder case where the High Court acquitted the respondents of charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of eye-witnesses, the consistency of medical reports, and the validity of alleged recoveries and extra-judicial confessions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and free from legal infirmity. The High Court correctly identified that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses with enmity toward the accused, their testimony was discrepant, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the nature of the deceased's injuries. Furthermore, the alleged motive was found implausible, and the evidence regarding recoveries and confessions was unreliable. The Court affirmed that where an acquittal is based on a sound, reasoned appreciation of evidence, it will not be interfered with. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is an acquittal by the High Court liable to be set aside if it is based on a sound and reasoned appreciation of the evidence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
  • Does the testimony of chance witnesses who are also inimical to the accused require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar Khan and 6 Others vs I. U. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1971 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-03
  consolidation of holdingsland allotmentevacuee propertyBoard of Revenueconsolidation schemestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The appellants were allotted land confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, but the Member, Board of Revenue, subsequently set aside this order, favoring the respondent, a displaced person whose allotment had been restored. The core legal question was whether the Member, Board of Revenue, possessed the authority to exclude specific plots from consolidation proceedings relating to an entire estate or sub-division. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "consolidation of holdings" does not mandate the consolidation of an entire estate or sub-division. Interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, the Court determined that the Consolidation Officer and the Collector have the discretion to exclude land from consolidation schemes for specific reasons, such as common purposes or other special circumstances. Consequently, the Court affirmed the order of the Board of Revenue, ruling that the Collector maintains absolute discretion to confirm a consolidation scheme with or without modifications, provided it aligns with the framework of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'consolidation of holdings' require the consolidation of an entire estate or sub-division?
  • Do the Consolidation Officer and Collector have the authority to exclude specific land from a consolidation scheme?
  • Is the Collector empowered to confirm a consolidation scheme with modifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 5 Others vs The State1971 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-08
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencetransfer of statementcommitting magistratecorroborationblood-stained clotheshostile witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the appellants' appeal and confirmed their death sentences for rioting and committing five murders under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the admissibility and use of previous statements of prosecution witnesses made before the committing Magistrate brought onto the Sessions record under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding whether such statements require confrontation under Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872 when witnesses make concessions in favor of the accused during trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where witnesses support the prosecution in examination-in-chief but resile later or make concessions, their previous statements before the committing Magistrate can be brought on record under Section 288, Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence without needing to confront them under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, provided there is independent corroboration. The key principle laid down is that previous statements properly transferred under Section 288, Cr.P.C. can be used to base a conviction when corroborated by reliable independent evidence such as blood-stained garments.

  Questions settled

  • Can previous statements of witnesses made before the committing Magistrate be brought on the record under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without complying with Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Whether a conviction can be based on statements transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when corroborated by independent evidence such as blood-stained recoveries?
  • Is confrontation under Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872 necessary when a witness supports the prosecution in examination-in-chief but makes concessions or resiles in the later part of the statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1971 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-18
  murderextra-judicial confessionalteration of convictionscreening of offendercircumstantial evidencerecoveriescommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of death under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mehraj Din. The core legal questions involve the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the admissibility of contradicted motive evidence, and the legal permissibility of altering a conviction to section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 under sections 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific initial charge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the circumstantial evidence and alleged extra-judicial confessions were insufficient or unreliable to sustain a conviction for murder, but that the recovery of blood-stained items and the disposal of the dead body sufficiently established an offense of causing disappearance of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that where substantive murder evidence collapses, recoveries of incriminating material can only corroborate primary proof, and where the primary murder charge fails, an accused may still be legally convicted of screening the offender under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to sections 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to interested witnesses and close relatives can form the sole basis of a murder conviction without natural corroboration?
  • Can recoveries of blood-stained items and the concealment of a dead body independently sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of substantive ocular or confessional evidence?
  • Is it legally permissible to alter a conviction from murder under section 302 to causing disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a specific initial charge, in view of sections 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Alias Ashraf Alias Achhi and 3 Others vs The State1971 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-08
  interested witnesscorroborationappreciation of evidencecriminal convictionsolitary witnessmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the conviction and three-year sentence of the petitioner under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a criminal conviction could be legally sustained based solely on the testimony of a solitary interested witness. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no inflexible rule of law requiring corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness. The Court clarified that while the testimony of an interested witness must be scrutinized, it does not require the same level of corroboration as that of an accomplice. Corroboration may be derived from any circumstances of the case that satisfy the Court of the witness's veracity, specifically regarding whether innocent persons were falsely implicated. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of corroboration depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In this matter, the witness's testimony was found credible and sufficiently supported by medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained and other corroborating circumstances, warranting no interference with the lower court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be based solely on the testimony of a solitary interested witness?
  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require the same degree of corroboration as that of an accomplice?
  • What constitutes sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Ghafuran Bibi1971 PLD Supreme Court 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-11
  dissolution of marriageKhulapleadingsjudicial proceduresecond appealright of rebuttalfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a High Court judgment in a second appeal concerning a suit for dissolution of marriage. The trial court initially decreed the suit for dissolution based on cruelty and non-maintenance, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court, despite the absence of a specific plea for Khula in the plaint, granted a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula. The core legal question was whether a court could suo motu grant a decree for Khula without the issue being pleaded or the defendant having an opportunity to contest it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s procedure was improper. While courts possess the power to grant Khula, this right is not absolute and requires judicial satisfaction that the spouses cannot live within the limits of Allah. The Court established the principle that fundamental judicial procedure requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to rebut any case made against them; therefore, a court cannot grant relief on an unpleaded cause of action without allowing for the amendment of pleadings and the presentation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula when such relief was not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Is the right of a wife to obtain a divorce by way of Khula an absolute right?
  • Does the granting of a decree on an unpleaded cause of action violate the fundamental principles of judicial procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ashraf and Another1971 PLD Supreme Court 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-18
  bail cancellationjudicial observationsvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblyleave to appealprejudice to prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order refusing to cancel bail granted to an accused charged with murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's generalized observations regarding the tendency of complainants in the Punjab region to falsely implicate family members of the accused. The Supreme Court held that such sweeping, generalized statements are inappropriate as they may prejudice the prosecution and mislead subordinate courts. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the judiciary to determine the veracity of allegations based on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case rather than relying on broad assumptions. While the Court disapproved of the High Court's remarks, it declined to grant leave to appeal due to the petitioner's delay in challenging the initial bail order. The principle laid down is that judicial observations regarding the credibility of complainants must be case-specific and avoid generalizations that could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate for a court to make generalized observations about the tendency of complainants to falsely implicate family members of an accused?
  • Can a court's generalized observations regarding the credibility of complainants be treated as a yardstick for future cases?
  • Does the failure to challenge an initial bail order promptly affect the maintainability of a subsequent petition for leave to appeal against the refusal to cancel that bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Jalaluddin1971 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-25
  execution of decreetime-barred claimconciliation courtnullity of decreeexecuting court jurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which directed the execution of decrees passed by a Conciliation Court despite the underlying claims being time-barred. The respondent had obtained decrees from a Conciliation Court constituted under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner challenged the execution of these decrees in subordinate courts, arguing that the claims were time-barred, rendering the decrees nullities. While the subordinate courts agreed with the petitioner, the High Court reversed this, holding that the executing court could not decline execution on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether a decree passed on a time-barred claim constitutes a nullity that an executing court may refuse to enforce. The Court held that a decree based on a time-barred claim is not a nullity in the eye of the law. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that an executing court cannot go behind a decree to refuse execution simply because the underlying claim was time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree passed by a Conciliation Court on a time-barred claim considered a nullity?
  • Can an executing court refuse to execute a decree on the ground that the underlying claim was time-barred?
  • Does an executing court have the authority to go behind a decree to determine if the claim was time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore1971 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-29
  waqf propertyalternative remedywrit petitionconstitutional jurisdictionnotification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, assuming control of certain land as waqf property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to entertain the writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entirely justified in dismissing the writ petition because the petitioner had an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 7 of the said Ordinance to seek a declaration before the District Judge. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 will not ordinarily be exercised when an adequate alternative statutory remedy is available to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution is maintainable when an adequate alternative remedy is provided under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961?
  • Can a person aggrieved by a notification under Section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 approach the District Judge for a declaration regarding the nature of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 Others vs Muhammad Safed Uz Zaman and Another1971 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-05
  suo motu revisionretrospective legislationvalidation clausedisplaced persons claimslimitation periodconstitutional interpretationvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the validity of a Claims Commissioner’s order exercising suo motu revisional powers to reduce claims after the expiry of the prescribed 90-day limitation period. Initially, the appellants challenged the order on the basis that the Commissioner failed to record a finding that circumstances justified acting beyond the limitation period, as required by previous Supreme Court precedents. However, during the proceedings, the law was amended by Ordinance No. XIII of 1964, which substituted the limitation period with a fixed date and included a validation clause for past actions. The appellants contended that such retrospective legislation violated Article 2 of the Constitution of 1962. The Court held that Article 2 does not prohibit the legislature from enacting retrospective laws. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the validating clause in the Ordinance compelled the judiciary to treat the Commissioner's order as valid under the amended law, regardless of whether the Commissioner explicitly stated his reasons for exercising jurisdiction at the time. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction under the amended statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 2 of the Constitution of 1962 prohibit the legislature from enacting laws with retrospective effect?
  • Can a validating clause in an Ordinance compel courts to treat past administrative orders as valid under amended law?
  • Does the amendment to section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 by Ordinance No. XIII of 1964 validate suo motu revisions made after the previously prescribed limitation period?
  Read full judgment →