Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Fazal Ahmad Versus Zulfiqar Ahmad1988 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Versus Niaz Ahmad1988 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ahmad Versus Muzaffar Khan1988 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq Versus Barkat Ali1988 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muharnmad Khan Versus Yaqoob Ali1988 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din Versus Muhammad Din1988 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Versus Muhammad Iqbal1988 SCMR 1522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Walidad Versus Amir1988 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab Versus Additional District Judge, Lahore1988 SCMR 1515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against the Province of Punjab regarding property occupied by a government-controlled educational institution. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of bona fide personal use, specifically to operate an educational institution, alongside allegations of subletting and rent default. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority ordered eviction, finding the landlord’s requirement genuine. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the landlord’s stated requirement satisfied the legal threshold for bona fide need. The Court held that the term 'require' under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance does not necessitate proof of dire survival or mere fancy, but rather a genuine, plausible need determined by the facts of each case. Finding that the lower authorities had correctly assessed the evidence without exceeding their jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the eviction order. The Court emphasized that judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring the legality of the process rather than re-evaluating the soundness of the landlord's business enterprise.
Questions settled- Does the term 'require' in the context of rent restriction laws imply a dire necessity for survival or merely a subjective desire?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a non-residential building for the purpose of establishing an educational institution?
- To what extent can a High Court interfere with findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Ghulam Muhammad Versus Additional Settlement Commissioner (L)/Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Multan1988 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the cancellation of 70 Kanals of land previously confirmed in favor of Mst. Fatima, a sitting allottee, and the subsequent refusal of the High Court to grant relief to her legal representatives. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to restore the cancelled land, despite a finding that the predecessor-in-interest was a sitting allottee. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The ratio decidendi rests on the principles of laches and the failure to implead necessary parties. The Supreme Court affirmed that where allotments made to third parties have remained unchallenged for years, and where the petitioners failed to implead necessary parties in a timely manner, the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction allows for the denial of relief when inordinate delay and procedural defects, such as non-joinder of parties, undermine the merits of the claim, rendering the petition incompetent.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches when necessary parties are impleaded after an inordinate delay?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the allotment in dispute is joint and indivisible and all joint allottees have not been impleaded?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse relief in a writ petition where the petitioner has failed to challenge the allotment of land to third parties for a significant period?
- Lahore Textile & General Mills Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which ruled against the petitioners. The core legal question for consideration is whether the levy of additional customs duty as a surcharge under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982, and as Iqra surcharge under section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985, could be levied in light of exemptions granted under notifications issued pursuant to section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioners contended that the exemptions covered the additional levies, whereas the Deputy Attorney-General argued that the levies were under separate enactments not covered by the section 19 exemptions. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the petitioners could claim exemption on the basis of the notifications regarding the additional levies imposed by the Finance Ordinance, 1982, and the Finance Act, 1985, while issuing interim orders allowing the clearance of goods upon furnishing bank guarantees.
Questions settled- Whether additional customs duty as surcharge under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982 can be levied despite exemptions granted under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Whether Iqra surcharge under section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985 is covered by exemption notifications issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Muhammad Hussain Versus Muhammad Aslam1988 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mukhtar Tikka Versus The Government of Punjab1988 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the termination of his services as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis. Under Martial Law Instruction No. 21, ad hoc appointments were to be reviewed by the Punjab Public Service Commission, with services of those found unsuitable being terminated and those found suitable being regularized. Although the Commission declared the appellant suitable, the Governor subsequently declared him ineligible and terminated his services. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could terminate the appellant's services after the competent selection authority (the Commission) had declared him suitable under the applicable Martial Law Instruction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the termination order, as the Advocate-General was unable to defend or justify the Provincial Government's decision to declare the appellant ineligible contrary to the Commission's findings.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government can terminate the services of an ad hoc employee after the Public Service Commission has declared them suitable under Martial Law Instruction No. 21?
- Is a termination order sustainable if the state counsel is unable to provide any justification or grounds for declaring an employee ineligible contrary to a selection board's recommendation?
- Manzoor Hussain Versus State1988 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1386-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining the appellants' convictions and death sentences for murder under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's eye-witness account and whether the motive—the deceased having previously chopped off the appellants' grandmother's nose—constituted sufficient provocation to mitigate the sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the eye-witness testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of blood-stained weapons. However, the Court held that the deceased's act of mutilating the appellants' grandmother brought significant infamy and dishonor to their family. While this did not amount to sudden provocation, the Court ruled it constituted "continuing provocation," serving as an extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, while enhancing the fine payable as compensation to the deceased's heirs. The judgment affirms that while consistent eye-witness and forensic evidence sustains a conviction, severe family dishonor caused by the victim can mitigate the ultimate penalty.
Questions settled- Can the act of a deceased person in chopping off a family member's nose constitute 'continuing provocation' sufficient to mitigate a death sentence?
- Is the testimony of a police officer regarding the recovery of incriminating weapons admissible and reliable in a murder trial?
- Does the presence of minor discrepancies in an eye-witness account necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Zafar Iqbal Versus State1988 SCMR 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-18Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad Versus Afzal1988 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Versus State1988 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the convictions of two respondents previously sentenced by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction of one respondent from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and in acquitting the second respondent of all charges. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the complainant's counsel, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were based on a proper appraisal of the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to modify the conviction and upheld the acquittal of the second respondent, finding no merit in the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's appellate findings when they are based on a sound and proper evaluation of the evidence presented during the trial.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's appellate judgment when the modification of a conviction is based on a proper appraisal of evidence?
- Is the acquittal of a co-accused by the High Court subject to reversal if the prosecution fails to establish a case against them?
- Muhammad Ehsan Versus Zulfiqar Ali1988 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted one respondent of a murder charge and altered the conviction of the other respondent from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of chance witnesses and relying instead on the confessional statement of the accused. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning, which found the eye-witnesses to be unreliable due to their inability to explain their presence at the crime scene and contradictions with medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's rejection of the ocular testimony was neither insubstantial nor perverse. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to accept the accused's version of events in its entirety, which disclosed an offence under section 304, Part I, rather than murder. The petition was dismissed, affirming that appellate courts are justified in rejecting ocular evidence when it is inconsistent with medical findings and lacks credibility.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court reject ocular testimony if it is inconsistent with medical evidence?
- Is a court justified in accepting the version of an accused in its entirety when the prosecution's ocular evidence is rejected?
- Under what circumstances can a conviction for murder be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the accused's statement?
- Maqbool Ahmad Versus Khawaja Afzal1988 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Versus State1988 SCMR 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals by leave arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of two persons. The prosecution case alleged that five accused persons, including Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Ramzan, ambushed the victims, fatally shooting them and inflicting sharp-edged weapon injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the re-appraisal of the ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence to determine the guilt of the appellants safely. The Supreme Court held that while the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and ballistic reports, established the guilt of Muhammad Ali beyond reasonable doubt, the case against Muhammad Ramzan was doubtful as ballistic evidence linked the crime empties exclusively to the weapon recovered from Muhammad Ali. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Muhammad Ali, maintaining his conviction and sentence, while accepting the appeal of Muhammad Ramzan and acquitting him of the charges.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses can sustain a conviction when contradicted by ballistic evidence?
- Can a criminal appeal be accepted where the weapon recovered from a specific accused is scientifically linked to the crime empties, thereby rendering another co-accused's alleged role doubtful?
- Does prompt lodging of the First Information Report serve as a guarantee against substitution of accused persons?
- Fateh Muhammad Versus Naziran Bibi1988 SCMR 1492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Versus Saghir Khan1988 SCMR 1491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Versus State1988 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta Versus State1988 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain Versus Muhammad Shafi1988 SCMR 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq Versus Fazal-Ur-Rehman1988 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the validity of a 1936 registered deed regarding ancestral agricultural land. The appellants sought to uphold the deed, which reserved life interest and usufruct for the donor and his wife, arguing it should be governed by Customary Law. The core legal questions were whether the appellants could invoke Customary Law without having pleaded or proved it when given the opportunity, and whether the deed constituted a valid gift under Muslim Law. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the applicability of Customary Law rests on the party asserting it. Having failed to plead or prove such custom when afforded the opportunity, the appellants were precluded from relying on it, and the matter fell to be decided under personal law. Applying Muslim Law, the Court held the deed invalid as a gift because it reserved possession and usufruct for the donor, violating the essential requirement of delivery of possession (seizin). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving that one is governed by custom rather than personal law lie upon the party asserting it?
- Is a gift under Muslim Law valid if the donor retains possession and usufruct of the property for their lifetime?
- Can a party rely on Customary Law to sustain a claim if they failed to plead or prove such custom when given the opportunity by the trial court?
- What are the essential requirements for a valid gift under Muslim Law?
- Inayat Versus State1988 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against the High Court's affirmation of death sentences imposed on Inayat, Mahla, Ahmad Sher, and Muhammad Sharif for the murders of five individuals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the death sentences should be maintained in light of the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased victims had voluntarily forgiven the convicts and accepted financial compensation. The Supreme Court, noting the voluntary compromise and forgiveness extended by the heirs, exercised its discretion to alter the sentences. The Court held that the death sentences of the four petitioners should be converted to imprisonment for life on each of the five counts, while maintaining the original convictions and sentences of fine. It was further ordered that these sentences of imprisonment for life shall run concurrently. The conviction and sentence of the co-accused, Ghulam Abbas, remained undisturbed. This decision underscores the principle that in capital cases, a voluntary compromise and forgiveness by the legal heirs of the deceased can serve as a mitigating factor for the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court convert death sentences to imprisonment for life based on a compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Does a voluntary compromise and acceptance of compensation by legal heirs constitute sufficient grounds for the commutation of a death sentence?
- Muhammad Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-appeals arising from the conviction of a patwari under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code for demanding and accepting illegal gratification, and subsequent proceedings concerning sentence enhancement. The core legal question centered on whether the High Court was justified in reducing the convicted official's substantive prison sentence to the period already undergone (20 days) based on mitigating factors such as the passage of time, trial agony, loss of job, and brief incarceration. The Supreme Court held that once a corruption offense is proven beyond reasonable doubt, showing undue leniency or reducing sentences to nominal terms based on such grounds is unwarranted and detrimental to society, especially given the rampant nature of public corruption. The Court dismissed the accused's appeal against conviction, allowed the State's appeal, and restored the original sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, reinforcing the principle that corrupt public servants must be dealt with firmly through deterrent punishment.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of a public servant convicted of bribery to the period already undergone on the grounds of trial agony and loss of service?
- Should courts show leniency in sentencing once a corruption charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- Does the awarding of nominal punishments to convicted corrupt officials fail to serve as an adequate deterrent against public corruption?
- Ali Zaman Versus State1988 SCMR 1474 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Ali Zaman, for the murder of Shah Daraz, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged his conviction, primarily arguing that the eye-witnesses were interested parties being brothers of the deceased and that the incident occurred under grave and sudden provocation, thereby warranting a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of murder. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the evidence, finding the eye-witnesses to be natural witnesses whose testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. Regarding the plea of grave and sudden provocation, the Court held that the appellant failed to establish the precise timing of the alleged provocation regarding his mother's injury or the interval between that incident and the firing. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the plea of provocation was unsubstantiated and that the sentence imposed was already lenient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be rejected solely on the ground that they are brothers of the deceased?
- What is the evidentiary requirement to successfully plead grave and sudden provocation under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased considered natural witnesses if they were present at the scene of the crime?
- Government of the Punjab Versus Muhammad Nisar Khan1988 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent's appeal against his compulsory retirement from service as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The respondent was proceeded against departmentally on allegations of abusing his official position by compelling local residents to provide free tractors and labor for cultivating a plot of land, and for making a false statement in his explanation regarding his connections with the said land. An inquiry was conducted, and ultimately the Chief Secretary ordered the respondent's compulsory retirement. The Service Tribunal set aside the retirement order on technical flaws. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was unduly influenced by technicalities and failed to thoroughly examine the evidence on record regarding the core charges, particularly in light of the definitions of corruption and misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the merits after examining the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a service tribunal can set aside a departmental penalty based merely on technical flaws without examining the evidence on the core charges?
- Does compelling locals to provide free labor and machinery for land cultivation while holding judicial office constitute misconduct and corruption?
- Whether the Supreme Court can remand a service matter to the tribunal when the tribunal fails to evaluate the evidence on record?
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Azam Javaid1988 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the termination of service of former Federal Security Force (FSF) personnel following the force's disbandment via the Federal Security Force (Repeal) Ordinance 1977. After the FSF was repealed, personnel were transferred to various organizations, including the Pakistan Rangers. The core legal questions were whether these transfers constituted permanent absorption, whether the subsequent discharge of these employees was lawful, and whether the government failed to comply with statutory seniority requirements. The Supreme Court held that the personnel had been validly absorbed into the new organizations by competent authority, creating vested rights. Consequently, the discharge orders were unlawful as they failed to adhere to the seniority principles mandated by Section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court affirmed that administrative actions must comply with statutory requirements regarding the termination of civil servants. Furthermore, the Court ruled that procedural irregularities in departmental appeals, such as addressing the wrong authority, are rectifiable and do not bar the maintainability of an appeal. The Federation’s appeals were dismissed, and the employees were reinstated subject to conditions regarding back pay.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of personnel from a disbanded force to another organization constitute permanent absorption?
- Is the termination of a civil servant lawful if it violates the seniority principles prescribed in Section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Can an administrative order that creates vested rights be arbitrarily recalled without valid grounds?
- Does the filing of a departmental appeal to the wrong authority constitute a fatal defect, or is it a rectifiable irregularity?
- Naimat Ullah Butt Versus Government of the Punjab1988 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the provincialization of educational institutions. The core legal question was whether the Government of the Punjab was legally required to merge the teaching staff of colleges transferred from local bodies into the general cadre of Government servants, or whether it could lawfully maintain them as a separate closed cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Government acted within its authority. The Court found no violation of the appellants' terms and conditions of service. The principle laid down is that there is no legal limitation preventing the Government from constituting separate cadres for various categories of officers inducted into its departments. Under the Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Government possesses the discretion to manage service structures, including the creation of separate cadres, provided no specific service guarantees are breached. The mere transfer of employees to Government service does not automatically entitle them to merger with existing cadres absent specific statutory or contractual provisions.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of employees from local bodies to the Provincial Government automatically entitle them to be merged into the general cadre of Government servants?
- Does the Government have the legal authority to maintain separate cadres for different categories of civil servants?
- Can a service cadre be kept as a closed cadre upon the provincialization of educational institutions?
- Muhammad Mumtaz Versus State1988 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal against the orders of the Lahore High Court, which refused bail to six petitioners involved in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail when the police investigation had found the accused innocent and placed them in column No. 2 of the challan. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order suffered from three infirmities: it improperly relied on statements made before the police, erroneously considered oaths from non-eye-witnesses, and inappropriately substituted its own opinion for the findings of the investigating agency regarding the innocence of the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and admitted the appellants to bail. The judgment establishes the principle that where the police investigation has declared accused persons innocent and placed them in column No. 2 of the challan, bail should not be refused based on the court's own disagreement with the investigating agency's conclusions or reliance on extraneous materials.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse bail to an accused who has been found innocent by the police and placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
- Is it appropriate for a court to substitute its own opinion for the findings of the investigating agency regarding the innocence of an accused during bail proceedings?
- Should a court rely on statements made before the police or oaths from non-eye-witnesses to refuse bail?
- Fayyaz Khan Versus Jamshed Ali Khan1988 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two petitions for leave to appeal arising from judgments of the Lahore High Court. The respondent, Jamshed Ali Khan, filed a suit for possession of a residential plot against the petitioner, Fayyaz Khan, alleging purchase through a 1950 auction and a 1965 registered sale-deed. The petitioner contested the suit, claiming ownership through adverse possession and a grant from the Municipal Committee in 1964 upon which he constructed a house. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed it, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court alleging fraud and misrepresentation regarding the identity and block location of the plot, which was dismissed. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that the case required further consideration regarding whether the decree was obtained through misrepresentation concerning the plot's location and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the Section 12(2) application. Consequently, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted leave to appeal, confirmed the stay, and permitted the filing of further documents.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be probed on merits when new documents indicate a potential misrepresentation of property location?
- Can a decree for possession be set aside on the ground of fraud if the underlying documents contain discrepancies regarding the identity of the property block?
- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a Section 12(2) petition by treating multiple discrepancies in official documents as a mere clerical mistake?
- Fatima Versus Abdul Razzak1988 SCMR 1449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a rent dispute where the High Court had remanded a case for further evidence regarding the service of a statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether the tenant had successfully rebutted the presumption of service of notice and whether the appellate court could validly rely on a comparison of signatures under the Evidence Act to determine the validity of that service. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the eviction order. The Court held that the tenant's denial of signatures and notice receipt was dishonest, particularly given his prior admission of the landlord-tenant relationship in pleadings. The Court affirmed that a court may validly render a finding of fact based on the comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act without needing to provide a formal, separate opportunity for the party to disprove the similarity, provided the comparison occurred in the presence of the parties. The judgment clarifies that such judicial comparison is a legitimate method of proof.
Questions settled- Can a court render a finding of fact based on the comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Is a formal opportunity to disprove the similarity of signatures required when a court performs a comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does a tenant's admission of the landlord-tenant relationship in pleadings preclude a subsequent denial of the service of notice?
- Khadim Hussain Versus Muhammad Arfan1988 SCMR 1445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the conviction of the accused respondent from murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The primary legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular evidence and the validity of the defense plea of self-action and sudden provocation in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had rightly discarded the doubtful testimony of related eye-witnesses and accepted the plausible defense plea of grave and sudden provocation, albeit noting the exercise of excessive force. The court reiterated the principle that pure questions relating to the appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the High Court in a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a plea of self-defence and sudden provocation be accepted to alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Does the presence of interested and related eye-witnesses become doubtful when natural conduct and independent corroboration are lacking?
- Allah Bakhsh Versus Muhammad Afzal1988 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had converted the conviction of Muhammad Afzal from murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-I, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The father of the deceased sought restoration of the original murder conviction and death sentence, while the convict challenged the conviction itself. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the conviction and sentence for causing the death of the victim. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial court's original conviction of the petitioner under section 302 was correct, but that a sentence of imprisonment for life remained the appropriate sentence under the circumstances. Because the High Court had already imposed life imprisonment, no miscarriage of justice resulted from the erroneous alteration of the conviction. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is substantively appropriate for the proven culpability, a technical or erroneous conversion of the conviction to a lesser charge by the appellate court does not warrant interference if no actual miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction of an accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was correct when altered to section 304-I by the High Court?
- Is imprisonment for life an appropriate sentence for an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code in certain circumstances?
- Does an erroneous conviction conversion result in a miscarriage of justice when the resulting sentence of life imprisonment remains appropriate?
- Manzur Hussain Versus Muhammad Fazil1988 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting ten respondents of murder and attempted murder charges. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's acquittal in light of the trial court's conviction, specifically regarding the appraisal of ocular evidence and medical testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on a flawed re-evaluation of evidence, whereas the trial court's assessment was accurate. The Court affirmed that interested witnesses' testimony is admissible if corroborated by other evidence, such as motive and medical reports. Furthermore, the Court rejected the High Court's reliance on self-inflicted injuries of the accused to discredit the prosecution. Re-affirming its authority to re-examine evidence to ensure the safe dispensation of justice, the Supreme Court restored the convictions. However, citing the difficulty in attributing specific fatal shots during the chaotic factional clash, the Court commuted the death sentences of four accused to life imprisonment to maintain parity with other convicted co-accused.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the power to re-examine evidence in criminal appeals to ensure the safe dispensation of justice?
- Should the testimony of interested witnesses be discarded outright in criminal cases?
- Can self-inflicted injuries on an accused be used to discredit the prosecution's case?
- Is it appropriate to commute death sentences to life imprisonment when specific fatal acts cannot be attributed to individual accused in a group attack?
- Abdul Rehman Versus Parveen Akhtar1988 SCMR 1433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- Asma Versus District Judge, Sialkot1988 SCMR 1430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition calls in question an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellate order of the District Judge, which had set aside the Guardian Judge's order granting custody of the minor to the mother and instead awarded custody to the father while allowing visitation rights to the mother. The core legal question concerned the welfare of the minor and the appropriate visitation arrangements for the mother in light of the minor's upbringing and attitude. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, modifying the lower appellate court's order to provide that the minor spend a fortnight during winter vacations and ten days during summer vacations in the company of the mother. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is paramount, requiring meaningful and sufficient contact with both parents to ensure a balanced personality and prevent unnatural alienation from either parent.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor should be awarded primarily based on the welfare of the minor?
- Can the appellate court interfere with the visitation arrangements made for a parent in child custody matters?
- What constitutes sufficient visitation rights for a mother when custody is given to the father?
- Waqarul Haq Alias Nithoo Versus State1988 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- Waheed-Ud-Din Kitchlew Versus Chief Settlement1988 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed the transfer of a property, known as Dawn Hotel, Murree, to the respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court correctly upheld the Settlement Commissioner's findings of fact regarding the respondent's prior allotment and possession, and whether the petitioner was disentitled to equitable relief due to his conduct. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding that the petitioner had approached the court with 'unclean hands'—due to material interpolations in his C.S. Form—was unexceptionable and justified the denial of relief. Furthermore, the Court found that the Settlement Commissioner's factual determinations regarding the respondent's status as a displaced person and his possession on the relevant date were supported by sufficient evidence and did not warrant interference. The principle laid down is that a petitioner who introduces fabricated or interpolated documents into judicial proceedings is disentitled to equitable relief under writ jurisdiction due to unclean hands.
Questions settled- Does the introduction of interpolated documents in a C.S. Form by a petitioner disentitle them to relief under writ jurisdiction?
- Can a petitioner claim relief in writ proceedings if they have approached the court with unclean hands?
- Do previous Supreme Court observations regarding possession in collateral proceedings constitute a final, binding finding of fact for the purpose of property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- L.M. Stratford Versus Amjad Hussain1988 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ismail Versus Gul Inayat Shah1988 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, addressing whether the provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to cases decided under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns the applicability of procedural remedies against judgments and orders under special rent laws. The court granted leave to appeal to consider this question of law, ordered that security be deposited, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. As part of its interim holding, the court restrained the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises pending the decision of the appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioner continues to deposit the rent in court. The key principle highlighted relates to the examination of whether general procedural provisions like section 12(2) govern special statutory jurisdictions.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to cases decided under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Abdul Hameed Versus State1988 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a sentence of death. The core legal question involves the extent to which a compromise between the parties can affect the sentencing of the convicts in a criminal case. The court held that the compromise arrived at between the parties is fair and proper, and consequently accepted it. The holding dictates that the death sentence of the appellant is reduced to life imprisonment, the fine imposed on the convicts is set aside in view of the compensation paid under the terms of the compromise, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extended to the appellant and four co-accused. The key principle laid down is that a genuine and fair compromise between parties in a criminal matter can form the basis for mitigating a sentence, including the reduction of a death penalty to life imprisonment and the setting aside of fines.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between parties result in the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be allowed in the computation of a sentence pursuant to a compromise?
- Can the fine imposed on convicts be set aside in view of compensation paid under the terms of a compromise?
- Muhammad Ismail Versus Rukan Din1988 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-1982, whereby the respondents, who were previously convicted by the trial court for murder, murderous assault, and other allied offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, were acquitted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any legal or factual error in its appreciation of evidence warranting interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court evaluated the evidence on sound principles for the appraisal of criminal evidence and that the findings did not require any interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the evidence has been appraised on sound legal principles.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when evidence has been evaluated on sound principles?
- Does the appraisal of evidence by the High Court in criminal cases warrant interference if conducted on sound principles?
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Nosher Rustam Sidhwa1988 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 203-F of the Constitution of Pakistan challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court dated April 27, 1981, which declared section 17 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam to a certain extent. The respondent, a non-Muslim citizen and licensed vendor of liquor, had petitioned the Federal Shariat Court challenging various provisions of the Order concerning prohibition, possession, and consumption of intoxicants. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the extension of prohibition to non-Muslims is not repugnant, section 17 was repugnant insofar as it allowed institutions managed by Muslims to deal in liquor, directing amendments to permit only institutions entirely manned by non-Muslims. The Supreme Court considered the arguments regarding the necessity of liquor for medicinal, scientific, and industrial purposes versus its prohibition for human consumption. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that Muslims cannot engage in the manufacture or sale of intoxicants meant for human consumption by non-Muslims, but permitting such activities for bona fide medicinal, scientific, industrial, or similar purposes. The key principle laid down is that while human consumption and related trade of intoxicants remain prohibited for Muslims, non-intoxicating, bona fide industrial, scientific, and medicinal uses are permissible.
Questions settled- Whether the extension of prohibition under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 to non-Muslim citizens is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Can Muslim licensees or the Government manufacture, import, transport, sell, or possess intoxicants meant for human consumption by non-Muslims?
- Is the manufacture, import, transport, sale, or possession of intoxicants for bona fide medicinal, scientific, or industrial purposes repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Municipal Committee Versus Muhammad Shafi Butt1988 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the dismissal of a Sanitary Inspector by the Chairman of a Municipal Committee. The core legal question was whether the dismissal order was vitiated because the Chairman, who had already ordered the removal, presided over a subsequent Municipal Committee meeting where the dismissal was presented for information. The lower courts had held that the Chairman's participation in the meeting violated principles of natural justice, creating an apprehension of bias. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman’s order of removal was complete, unqualified, and effective immediately upon issuance, prior to the meeting. The presentation of the decision to the Committee was merely for information, not for ratification or approval. Consequently, the Court found that the principle of bias or lack of impartiality did not apply in this context, as the Chairman was the competent authority to take the action independently. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the respondent's suit, ruling that the dismissal was valid.
Questions settled- Does the participation of a Chairman in a committee meeting to inform members of a dismissal order already passed by him vitiate the order on grounds of bias?
- Can an administrative order that is complete and effective upon issuance be invalidated by subsequent reporting to a committee?
- Is the principle of natural justice violated when an authority who has already exercised a power independently later informs a committee of that action?
- Gul Muhammad Versus Asmat Ara1988 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application. The core legal question was whether the landlady had established a bona fide requirement for the rented premises to justify the tenant's eviction. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the application, citing contradictions in the landlady's stated reasons for requiring the property. However, the High Court reversed this, finding the contradictions minor and immaterial to the core claim of bona fide need. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that minor inconsistencies in a landlord's testimony regarding the specific future use of property do not necessarily negate a bona fide requirement for possession. The Court held that where the requirement is established, minor discrepancies regarding the mode of property division or construction plans do not defeat the claim for ejectment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was maintained.
Questions settled- Does a minor contradiction in a landlord's testimony regarding the future use of property negate the claim of bona fide requirement?
- Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding on bona fide requirement if the contradictions relied upon by the Rent Controller are immaterial?
- Is a landlord's stated intention to construct shops on rented land sufficient to establish a bona fide requirement for ejectment?
- Abdul Ghaffar Versus Noor Jehan Malik1988 SCMR 1410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions challenge a judgment of the High Court of Sind upholding the orders of the Rent Controller which fixed the fair rent of residential flats under section 8 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 and increased the monthly rent from less than Rs.200 to Rs.900. The core legal question concerns the proper application of the statutory factors specified for determining fair rent under clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court observed that while considerations under clauses (a) and (b) were not ignored, those under clauses (c) and (d) lacked due attention. The Court held that the questions raised were of first impression and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while issuing interim arrangements regarding the deposit and conditional withdrawal of the enhanced rent.
Questions settled- What are the mandatory factors to be considered by the Rent Controller when determining the fair rent of premises under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Whether failure to give due attention to all statutory clauses under section 8 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 warrants grant of leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Yameen Versus Niamat Ali1988 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
- Amanat Ali Versus Muhammad Ali1988 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain Versus Maqbool Hussain1988 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad Versus Allah Wasaya1988 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Versus Abdur Rehman1988 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh Versus Rahim Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Lal Khatoon Versus Rahim Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Versus Muhammad Ramzan1988 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim Versus Mehtab Ahmad1988 SCMR 1402 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad Versus District Judge, Bhakkar1988 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Siddiq Versus Deputy Commissioner1988 SCMR 1400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Versus Sajid Hussain Shah1988 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sami Ullah, Managing Partner, Messrs Shifa Medico (Regd.) Versus Muhammad Ashiq Khan Abdali1988 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif Versus Noor Ahmad1988 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Versus Muhammad Boota1988 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali Versus Additional District Judge, Kasur1988 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Versus Muhammad Sharif Khan1988 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Saiful Khan Versus Fiyaz Ali Khana1988 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Nazir Versus Muhammad Boota1988 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Bagh Ali Versus Asadullah Khan1988 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Alimuddin Versus Mehr Din1988 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mumtaz Versus Muhammad Sher1988 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shahnawaz Versus Khurshid Alam1988 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif Versus Mairaj Din1988 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammadazeem Alias Muhammad Azam Versus Additional Districtjudge-I, Muzaffargarh1988 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry Versus Abdul Hamid1988 SCMR 1385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf Versus Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq Versus Muhammad Siddique1988 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the interpretation of the words "Deh" or "Mauza" in the context of pre-emption rights, specifically whether alleging ownership in the "Deh" satisfies the requirement of being an owner in the estate. The core legal question addressed is whether "Deh" and "Mauza" are synonymous with the term "estate". The Supreme Court held that "Deh" and "Mauza" are indeed the Urdu equivalents for the word "estate", as supported by the Land Record Manual. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the view of the High Court that ownership in the Deh constitutes ownership in the estate for pre-emption purposes. The key principle laid down is that the terms "Deh", "Mauza", "Mahal", and "estate" are interchangeable in revenue and pre-emption jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether the words "Deh" and "Mauza" are equivalent to the word "estate"?
- Does alleging ownership in the Deh satisfy the requirement of being an owner in the estate for pre-emption?
- Muhammad Yaqoob Versus Khalil-Ur-Rehman1988 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the notification declaring the petitioner successful in the District Council, Abbottabad election for Ward No.2. The High Court had exercised constitutional jurisdiction and set aside the election on the ground that voting at one polling station was disturbed, postponed, and ballot boxes removed. The core legal questions examine whether Rule 42 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979 and Section 39-A of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance bar a challenge to an election by means other than an election petition, whether an election petition constituted an adequate alternative remedy where controverted questions of fact existed, and whether a writ petitioner who participated in removing ballot boxes is entitled to discretionary constitutional relief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, confirmed the interim order, and directed the matter to be heard on the present record.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 42 of N.-W.F.P. Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979 and section 39-A of N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance prohibit a challenge to the election by means other than an Election Petition?
- Whether an election petition was an adequate alternative remedy when pending petitions and controverted questions of fact were involved?
- Whether a writ petitioner whose agents or supporters removed ballot boxes becomes disentitled to discretionary constitutional relief?
- Azad Versus Karam Khan1988 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 100 Kanals 16 Marlas located in Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock. The respondent brought the suit for possession claiming a superior right of pre-emption as an owner in the estate and co-sharer. The trial court found the respondent to be an owner in the estate but dismissed the suit for failure to pay the requisite court-fee within the limitation period. The appellate court affirmed this decision. However, on revision, the High Court allowed the suit, holding that the late deposit of court-fee was not fatal. The petitioner challenged this decree before the Supreme Court on the ground that the right of pre-emption based on being an owner in the estate was no longer available following the Islamic principles laid down in Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) and subsequent decisions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decree, holding that the suit could not have been decreed on the basis of being an owner in the estate, thereby dismissing the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit based on being an owner in the estate can be decreed following the Supreme Court's declaration of law in Said Kamal Shah's case?
- Whether the High Court erred in decreeing a pre-emption suit where the right claimed as an owner in the estate was no longer legally available?
- Nimatullah Versus Ghulam Rasul1988 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Versus Sajid Hussain Shah1988 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions seeking enhancement of sentences and leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning convictions for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involve the justification for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life and the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly weighed and sifted the evidence without violating any rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that justifiable grounds existed for reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life. Consequently, both the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement and the convict's jail petition for leave to appeal were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's appraisal of evidence or the exercise of sentencing discretion unless a clear legal infirmity or violation of evidentiary rules is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence in criminal cases without proof of a legal infirmity?
- Can a sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when justifiable grounds exist?
- Whether the concurrent findings of the High Court regarding lesser sentences warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammadamin Versus Balqees Begum.1988 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Versus Inayat Muhammad1988 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad Versus Allah Rakha1988 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad Versus Muhammad Kashif Ikram1988 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta Versus Gul Muhammad1988 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh Versus Lal Muhammad1988 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
- Zubaida Begum Versus Muhammad Khan1988 SCMR 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Pathana Versus Abdul Aziz1988 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf Versus Government of Punjab1988 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus Muhammad Sulemana1988 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Samand Versus Ismaily1988 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad Versus Muhammad Bibi1988 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Rashid Versus Ali Hassan1988 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Versus Muhammad Shafi1988 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ghias-Ud-Din Versus Falak Sherri1988 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five review petitions filed against a common judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 29th October 1986, which arose from connected civil appeals. The petitioners sought review on the grounds that the Court failed to consider certain documents and arguments regarding the cancellation of property transfer orders and the classification of the disputed land as non-evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could introduce new factual pleas and re-argue the merits of the case within the scope of review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the alleged documents were not part of the record before the trial court or the appellate courts, and that the petitioners were attempting to set up an entirely new case not previously pleaded. The Court affirmed the principle that review proceedings are not a forum for re-arguing an appeal afresh or for introducing new factual contentions that were not raised or substantiated in the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds to exercise its review jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce new factual pleas in review proceedings that were not raised in the lower courts?
- Is it permissible to re-argue an appeal on its merits within the scope of review proceedings?
- Does the failure to consider documents not present on the trial record constitute a ground for review?
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Additional District Judge-III,Sahiwal1988 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority Versus Central Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Karachi Development Authority against the dismissal of its constitutional petition by the Sind High Court. The petitioner, a statutory corporation, manufactured R.C.C. pipes exclusively for its own statutory water and sewerage obligations. Initially, the Central Board of Revenue declared these pipes non-taxable under sales tax laws, but later cancelled that view and demanded tax. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the earlier letter did not constitute a statutory exemption creating a vested right. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the pipes were not subject to tax and that the petitioner functioned as a department of the Provincial Government, rendering its goods immune from taxation under the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that an important constitutional question was raised regarding whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are the property of the Provincial Government and thus immune from taxation, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether goods produced by a statutory corporation can be regarded as the property of the Provincial Government and thus immune from taxation under the Constitution?
- Does a departmental clarification declaring goods non-taxable create a vested right of exemption?
- Can tax authorities withdraw a previous departmental interpretation or declaration regarding non-taxability of goods?