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.
- Ihsan Illahi Versus Islam Mahmood1981 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman Versus Muhammad Afzal1981 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddiq Versus Muhammad Sharif1981 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Rashid Brothers, Faisalabad Versus Muhammad Anwar Khan1981 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-26Read full judgment →
- Abbasi Begum Versus Ghulam Fatima1981 SCMR 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Versus Deputy Administrator, Residual Property1981 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-02Read full judgment →
- Enayat Bibi Versus Salamat Bibi1981 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1981 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad Versus Federal Land Commission1981 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Versus Umar Saigal1981 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1960-03-09Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab Versus Combined Traders1981 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqui Versus Shaista Khan1981 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-12Read full judgment →
- Gul Haider Versus State1981 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant for the murder of his step-brother and sentenced him to death. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's reappraisal of evidence, specifically the ocular testimony, the dying declaration, and the circumstantial evidence of motive and abscondence, in setting aside an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, finding that the trial court erred in rejecting credible eyewitness accounts and the dying declaration based on minor improvements or medical opinions regarding the timing of death. The Court affirmed that medical expert evidence is confirmatory and cannot outweigh direct, creditworthy ocular testimony. Furthermore, the Court held that the murder was premeditated, given the appellant's travel to the deceased's residence, and thus warranted the death penalty. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence as the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can medical expert evidence regarding the time of death outweigh direct, creditworthy ocular testimony?
- Is the High Court justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's assessment of evidence results in a miscarriage of justice?
- Does the presence of minor improvements in witness statements necessitate the rejection of their entire testimony?
- Grindiays Bank Ltd. Versus Abdur Razaq Khan1981 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi Ijaz Versus Government of Punjab1981 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals and petitions regarding the terms and conditions of service of Principals, Head Masters, and Head Mistresses of nationalised educational institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question concerned the competence of constitutional petitions in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 relating to the jurisdiction of Services Tribunals. The Supreme Court permitted the appellants and petitioners to withdraw their matters to approach the appropriate Punjab Services Tribunal. The Court held that the appellants' and petitioners' present status and emoluments should be maintained for a limited period until the Services Tribunal decides their interim relief applications, provided they file their appeals within one month. The key principle laid down is that while service matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Services Tribunals pursuant to constitutional and statutory bars, appellate courts may preserve interim status for a reasonable limited duration to enable parties to seek relief from the competent tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants are barred from the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court preserve the existing status and emoluments of appellants temporarily upon the withdrawal of appeals to enable them to approach the Services Tribunal?
- Whether a Services Tribunal has the authority to consider applications for interim relief in service matters?
- Khozab Gul Versus State1981 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Khana Mir, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence of abscondence, arising from a background of deep-rooted family enmity. The Sessions Judge had initially acquitted the appellant, finding the eye-witnesses unreliable and discrepant. The Supreme Court examined the conflicting versions regarding the lodging of the First Information Report and the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving the prosecution evidence were cogent and that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal where the view taken by the trial court was a plausible one. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the assessment of evidence by the trial court is arbitrary or perverse. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's view of the evidence is plausible and based on cogent reasons?
- Can contradictory testimonies of eye-witnesses regarding the lodging of the First Information Report form a safe basis for conviction?
- What is the evidentiary value of abscondence when the primary ocular testimony is found to be unworthy of credence?
- Muhammad Anwar Versus State1981 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a criminal appeal where the Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner convicted for murder. The prosecution case was that the petitioner killed his brother's wife after she complained to her father that the petitioner was compelling her for sexual intercourse and illicit relations. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on merits regarding false implication and medical evidence contradictions, as well as on the question of sentence based on a compromise and acceptance of compensation under Islamic principles. The Supreme Court repelled the arguments on merits, finding no infirmity in the ocular account provided by closely related eye-witnesses and holding that the medical discrepancy was based on a hypothesis. However, the Court granted leave to consider whether a compromise and payment of compensation effectuated after the High Court's judgment can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a capital sentence to life imprisonment under Islamic criminal jurisprudence, and whether the timing of such compromise affects the relief.
Questions settled- Can a compromise and payment of compensation effectuated after the pronouncement of judgment by the High Court be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a capital sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
- Whether closely related eye-witnesses' testimony regarding a murder can be discounted on the mere suggestion of false implication without tangible infirmities?
- Does a minor discrepancy between medical evidence regarding semi-digested food and the ocular account of the time of occurrence necessitate the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Ahsan Llahi Versus Habib Bank Ltd.1981 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad Versus Umar Hayat1981 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Hashmat Bibi Versus Gulzar Muhammad1981 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
- Naseem Shafi Versus Tanvir Affarndi1981 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Umar Versus Aiysha Aziz1981 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landowner against the appellant-tenant in Karachi. The Rent Controller ordered the deposit of tentative rent, which the appellant failed to deposit within the stipulated time, resulting in his defense being struck off and an order for vacant possession. The Additional District Judge set aside this order, but the High Court, in an ex parte hearing, restored the Rent Controller's order. The appellant's subsequent application for rehearing was dismissed by the High Court. Upon granting leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellant had been served with reasonable notice of the High Court appeal and whether his illness justified the delay in depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove lack of service or justify the delay, as his plea of illness was insufficient given that he operated a hotel and could have arranged for the rent deposit through employees. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with a four-month grace period granted to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does illness of a tenant operating a business constitute a sufficient justification for failing to comply with an order for the deposit of tentative rent?
- Whether a tenant running a business establishment can excuse a delay in depositing rent by claiming personal illness without proving inability to have employees make the deposit?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a finding of fact regarding postal service of notice when the appellant's plea is found to be false and unsupported by necessary witnesses?
- Is a tenant who delays depositing rent until the last day running the risk of being held in willful default if unforeseen circumstances arise?
- Sikandar Ali Versus Sind Services Tribunal1981 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Sind Services Tribunal, which summarily dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his dismissal from service for willful absence from duty. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding the appeal not maintainable due to a belated departmental appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the material on record clearly sustained the charges of willful absence against the petitioner and his explanations regarding illness and police detention were unsubstantiated, it was not a fit case to grant special leave to appeal or remand the matter, regardless of the legal questions raised. The key principle laid down is that where ample evidence sustains disciplinary charges and explanations lack cogent proof, the Supreme Court will decline to interfere or grant leave, bypassing technical legal questions whose resolution would serve no useful purpose.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can dismiss an appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the departmental appeal was barred by time?
- Does consideration of a belated departmental appeal on merits imply condonation of delay by the appellate authority?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when ample material exists on record to sustain the disciplinary charges of willful absence?
- Barkatey Versus Member, Board of Revenue1981 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Nazar Ali Versus Lbne Ali1981 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- Munawar Beg Versus Hassan Bibi1981 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the refusal of the Lahore High Court to restore their writ petition, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the omission of the petitioner's counsel's full name from the cause list constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the incomplete name in the cause list hindered the counsel from identifying his case, thereby constituting a sufficient cause for his absence. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed that the writ petition be heard on merits. The key principle laid down is that an omission or error in a cause list affecting the proper identification of a case by counsel serves as sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a counsel's full name from the cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Can an order refusing to restore a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution be set aside when the counsel missed the date due to a defective cause list?
- Mushtaq Ahmed Versus Muhammad Akram1981 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing his sentence to six years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, brother of the deceased, contended that the attack was premeditated and that the High Court erred in applying Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted premeditated murder or a culpable homicide committed upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions of the High Court were sustainable on the record, noting the absence of evidence of a pre-planned ambush, the occurrence of a sudden scuffle resulting in injuries to the accused, and the applicability of Exception IV to section 300. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reasonably arrived at by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of a weapon by the accused necessarily establishes premeditation in a charge of murder?
- Does a sudden fight arising from a previous grievance attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court regarding the nature of an assault?
- Basharat Ali Shah Versus State1981 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder, originally upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular testimony and the First Information Report (FIR), in a case involving indiscriminate firing by a group of armed individuals. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with significant doubts, noting inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the ocular accounts, as well as procedural irregularities in the recording of the FIR. The Court observed that the medical evidence of contused wounds was inconsistent with the claim of close-range firearm injuries, and the lack of independent corroboration in a case involving deep-seated enmity rendered the testimony of interested witnesses unsafe. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is inherently doubtful, inconsistent with medical findings, and lacks independent corroboration in a case of enmity, it is unsafe to maintain convictions, necessitating the acquittal of the accused in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
- Does the failure to record an FIR in accordance with the law, specifically regarding the identity of the complainant and the timing of the recording, cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
- Is it safe to rely on the testimony of interested witnesses in a case of enmity without independent corroboration?
- What is the impact on the prosecution's case when the medical evidence of injuries contradicts the alleged manner of assault?
- Niazoo Malias Niaz Muhammad Versus State1981 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a triple murder conviction. The appellant, Niazoo, and his four brothers were tried for the murder of three individuals. The trial court convicted Niazoo and one brother, Sobho, while acquitting the remaining three. The High Court subsequently acquitted Sobho but upheld Niazoo’s conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was indivisible; having been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, their evidence could not sustain his conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the lower courts had not disbelieved the witnesses but had merely extended the benefit of doubt to the acquitted co-accused due to the absence of specific overt acts or contradictions in the specific roles attributed. The Court held that the prosecution evidence against the appellant was consistent and sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence, and established that the principle of indivisibility of witness testimony does not apply where the court has not rejected the witnesses' credibility but merely applied the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of some co-accused due to the benefit of doubt automatically render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable against the remaining accused?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses divisible when the trial court has not rejected their credibility but granted the benefit of doubt to specific co-accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on eye-witness testimony if the trial court has acquitted some co-accused for lack of overt acts?
- Ghulam Rasul Versus Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal1981 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Versus Shah Muhammad1981 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- Murid Ahmad Versus Member, Board of Revenue1981 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir Versus District Judge1981 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
- Zinda Mahmood Bajwa Versus Farhat Hasan1981 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad Versus Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue1981 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- Wazir Khan Versus Budh Singh1981 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Abdul Rahman Versus Punjab Service Tribunal1981 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant holding Grade 17, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4-5-1980. The petitioner had been appointed as a Section Officer by the Punjab Government, subsequently promoted as Deputy Secretary on 12-2-1977, and later reverted to the Federal Government when his promotion notification was cancelled on 12-9-1977. The Service Tribunal had upheld the regularization of his initial appointment and promotion but found that his appointment was against an existing vacancy until further orders, reserving power to terminate it. The core legal question was whether the Government could interfere with an appointment made until further orders without following the strict rules governing reversion. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was of indefinite duration and operated on probation since the requirement of probation was not dispensed with, and his reversion within a year caused no legal grievance as there was no stigma attached to it. The petition raised no question of law, and leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment made until further orders can be interfered with by the Government without strictly following the rules governing reversion?
- Does an appointment of indefinite duration without a waiver of probation requirements operate as an appointment on probation?
- Whether the reversion of a civil servant within a year from a post held on probation without any stigma attached gives rise to a valid legal grievance?
- Abdul Ghaffar Versus Muhammad Ramzan1981 SCMR 1162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-10Read full judgment →
- Jehangir Versus Mallah1981 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali Versus State1981 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-11Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain Versus Misri Khan1981 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal concerning the resumption of land allotted under the Grow-More-Food Scheme. The core legal question was whether the resumption order passed by the Collector without examining if the breach was rectifiable under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 was illegal, and whether subsequent default after being granted time by the Commissioner vitiated the forfeiture. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was given time by the Commissioner to pay the price and failed to comply, the petitioner could not legitimately grieve against the forfeiture, and successive extensions of time cannot be claimed indefinitely. The key principle laid down is that a defaulter who fails to pay dues even after being granted an opportunity by an appellate authority cannot challenge the ultimate resumption of land, and statutory powers of resumption cannot be defeated by endless demands for extensions upon repeated defaults.
Questions settled- Whether the resumption of land by a Collector is illegal if an opportunity to rectify the breach is not initially examined?
- Can a tenant claim successive extensions of time to pay dues after committing repeated defaults following an appellate grant of time?
- Whether forfeiture of tenancy is justified when a default persists despite opportunities granted to rectify the non-payment?
- Khadim Hussain Versus State1981 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
- M. Abdul Latif Versus G. M. Paracha1981 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Taj Versus State1981 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Versus State1981 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31st of May, 1980, passed in his appeal. The core legal question was whether a judgment delivered by three judges of a four-judge bench that originally heard the appeal, with the Chief Justice's name inadvertently omitted and without his opinion, constitutes a nullity in the eye of law. The Supreme Court held that the submission had substance, as the omission of a member of the bench who heard the case rendered the judgment defective, necessitating a rehearing. The court established the principle that an appeal must be decided by the complete quorum of judges who heard it, and any omission in the panel resulting in a failure to obtain the opinion of a participating judge warrants recalling the judgment and fixing the matter for a fresh hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment delivered by a truncated bench when the appeal was heard by a larger bench is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Does the omission of a judge who heard the appeal from the panel and judgment sheet merit the rehearing of the appeal?
- Karam Khan Versus State1981 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner sought review primarily on the grounds of mitigating circumstances regarding the motive, a compromise reached between the families of the deceased and the petitioner, and the alleged inconsistency of the death penalty with Shariat law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a review petition requires demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record, which the petitioner failed to establish. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings by lower courts regarding sentencing discretion should not be interfered with in review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that a private compromise between parties does not constitute a legal ground for reviewing a criminal conviction or sentence, though it may be relevant for executive clemency. Finally, the Court ruled that it must apply the law as it stood at the time of the offense, rejecting arguments based on subsequent legal developments or potential future legislative changes.
Questions settled- Does a compromise between the families of the deceased and the accused constitute a valid ground for reviewing a criminal judgment?
- Can a court in a review petition interfere with the concurrent exercise of sentencing discretion by lower courts?
- Is a court required to apply the law as it stood at the time of the offense rather than subsequent legal developments?
- Is a private compromise between parties a relevant consideration for executive mercy under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Ajmal Versus Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bahawalpur1981 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- Zilladar Versus Allah Banda1981 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ali Versus Settlement Commissioner1981 SCMR 1025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- Inamullah Khan Versus Lahore Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Lahore1980 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- Farid Versus Abdul Aziz1980 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi Versus Muhammad Sharif1980 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- Nisar Hussain Versus Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1980 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
- Gul Hassan Versus Hayatullah1980 SCMR 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises out of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously restored the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts in a property dispute concerning agricultural land. The original suit involved a claim by Mir Abdullah that a mutation of his 23/24th share in the land was fraudulent. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in his favor, but the High Court reversed it in second appeal, which the Supreme Court subsequently set aside. In the present review petition, the petitioners argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court, that the plaintiff's subsequent death and inheritance by a co-defendant affected the decree, and that the executing court might misinterpret the decree. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised were essentially questions of fact properly determined by the lower courts, that the subsequent death of a party had no bearing on the correctness of the prior judgment, and that the decree clearly pertained solely to the plaintiff's share. The review petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's appellate jurisdiction in second appeal is attracted when the lower courts have fully considered the evidence on questions of fact?
- Does the subsequent death of a plaintiff after the conclusion of proceedings have any bearing on the correctness of a judgment and decree previously rendered?
- Can a review petition be maintained on the ground of an alleged error in appreciating evidence when the findings of fact were concurrently reached by the lower courts?
- Muhammad Asiam Khan Versus Gohar Aman1980 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Sajid Versus Zaheer Ahmad1980 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenged a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents for alleged abduction and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The proceedings had remained pending for over four years with no material progress, despite judicial directions to record the evidence of the alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman who had voluntarily married the primary respondent and executed an affidavit to that effect. The High Court had quashed the proceedings, deeming the complaint an abuse of the process of the court given the lack of progress and the victim's own admissions regarding her relationship with the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on the merits, finding no case for the petitioner. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine a legal contention regarding whether the enactment of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had impliedly repealed the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that previous jurisprudence on this specific point required further examination.
Questions settled- Whether Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has by implication repealed Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is an inordinate delay and lack of progress in the trial?
- S. Pin Liu Versus MRS. Najma Kazmi1980 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant of a residential house in Karachi, who converted a room thereof into a beauty parlour without the landlord's written consent. The core legal question was whether a tenant using a part of a residential building for commercial purposes without the landlord's written consent incurs liability for eviction under the relevant rent legislation, and whether conversion of only a part of the building attracts such penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that converting even a part or single room of a residential building for commercial use without written consent violates the tenancy terms and renders the tenant liable to ejectment under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the statutory prohibition against unauthorized user extends to any part of a leased building, and informal or unwritten permissions cannot override express statutory and contractual requirements for written landlord consent.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who converts a part of a residential building into commercial premises without the written consent of the landlord is liable to eviction?
- Does the conversion of a single room of a rented residential building bring the tenant within the mischief of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Ordinance?
- Can an oral or unwritten understanding justify the conversion of a residential premises to commercial use in the absence of a written consent from the landlord?
- Hazoor Bakhsh Versus Waddon1980 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s acquittal of respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular evidence and the dying declaration, thereby granting the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the dying declaration was correctly disregarded because the trial court failed to examine the accused regarding it under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding ocular evidence, the Court found the witnesses unreliable as they were inimical to the accused and had failed to disclose the assailants' identities to the village Chowkidar immediately after the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the witnesses' testimony and the medical evidence concerning the time of death. The Court established that ocular evidence from interested or inimical witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and where such corroboration is absent and the evidence is discrepant, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be relied upon if the trial court fails to question the accused about it under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the evidence of an inimical witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can an acquittal be upheld when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the time of death?
- Bashir Ahmad Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan& Bahawalpur Division1980 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- Inayat Khan Versus Sazan1980 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abdullah Versus Faiz Muhammad1980 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- Ehsan-Ul-Had Versus The Province of Punjab1980 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- National Electric Fans Manufacturers (Regd.), Gujrat Versus S. Muhammad Din & Sons Ltd., Lahore1980 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a passing-off action instituted by the respondent against the petitioner in the District Court, Lahore, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from using the word "National" in the description and marketing of its electric fans. The core legal question concerned whether a trader can claim a monopoly over an ordinary descriptive word or trade name and completely bar another party from trading under its own bona fide business name, particularly when the latter has used it for an extended period. The Supreme Court held that a person is entitled to carry on business under their own name or descriptive terms so long as they do not act dishonestly, and an unregistered user cannot acquire a monopoly over generic words of common language. The Court concluded that while the respondent was entitled to a qualified interim injunction preventing the petitioner from over-emphasizing or deceptively splashing the word "National" after 1967, an absolute prohibition against trading under its established business name was legally unsustainable. The High Court's judgment was accordingly set aside and terms for interim regulation were prescribed.
Questions settled- Whether a trader can claim a monopoly over an ordinary descriptive word or business name to completely prohibit another from using it?
- Does the right of an individual or firm to trade under its own name constitute an exception to the general rule against passing off?
- Can the owner of an unregistered trade mark claim higher rights than the owner of a registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Whether an appellate court should interfere with concurrent or interim findings of fact relating to dishonest get-up in passing-off actions?
- Krishan Lai Versus Azizullah Khan1980 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil Versus Khan Bahadur1980 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising out of a suit for a declaration that the petitioner, as a mortgagee of the suit land for over 60 years, had become its owner by efflux of time. The core legal question is whether the period of a previous mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee can be tacked or dovetailed with a subsequent mortgage to compute the 60-year limitation period for extinguishment of the right to redeem under Article 148 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that where the previous mortgage was duly redeemed and a new mortgage was created in favour of a different person while the land was in the self-cultivating possession of the mortgagor, the periods of the two mortgages cannot be tagged together, rendering a suit filed before the expiry of 60 years from the subsequent mortgage premature. The key principle laid down is that the period of a prior redeemed mortgage cannot be tacked to a subsequent, independent mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee for the purpose of computing limitation for redemption or extinguishment of mortgage rights.
Questions settled- Whether the period of a previous mortgage can be tacked with a subsequent mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee for computing the 60-year limitation period under Article 148 of the Limitation Act?
- Does a suit for declaration that a mortgage stands extinguished become premature if filed before the expiry of 60 years from the creation of the relevant mortgage?
- Can a subsequent mortgagee claim the benefit of a prior redeemed mortgage created in favour of a different person who was not a privy to the subsequent contract?
- Niaz Muhammad Versus Noori1980 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Jan Khan Versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan1980 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Federal Land Commission Versus Hassan Mehmood1980 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Land Commission filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court, which suspended the operation of the Commission's order and directed the maintenance of status quo regarding land in dispute during the pendency of a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant interim orders extending beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had already moved the High Court for the vacation of the interim orders. The Court held that the legal and constitutional position regarding the limitations on interim orders, as previously settled by the Supreme Court, should first be brought to the notice of the High Court seized of the matter. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the expectation that the High Court would review the interim orders in light of the settled constitutional principles.
Questions settled- Whether interim orders passed by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can exceed the statutory time limits prescribed therein?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an interim order when an application for its vacation is already pending before the High Court?
- Ghulam Rasul Etc Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner,Gujranwala1980 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, 5TH Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore Etc. Versus Combined Traders, Lahore1980 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Din Versus Syran Bi1980 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- Interhom Ltd. Versus Nisar Ahmad Khan1980 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner company sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of its second appeal by the High Court of Sind, which had upheld the concurrent orders for its ejectment from the disputed residential premises leased for business use. The respondent landlord had sought ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. During the pendency of the second appeal, the petitioner filed an application to produce additional evidence regarding the respondent's employment and accommodation, but the petitioner's counsel failed to press or bring this application to the notice of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not be faulted for failing to consider an application that was not pressed at the bar. Furthermore, the contention that the respondent could not seek ejectment because the lease was originally executed by an ostensible lessor was rejected, as the petitioner had subsequently tendered and paid rent to the respondent, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a four-month extension granted to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner fault the High Court for failing to consider an application for additional evidence that was never brought to its notice or pressed by counsel?
- Does a tenant who tenders and pays rent to a person other than the original ostensible lessor accept that person as the landlord for the purpose of an ejectment application?
- Whether an ejectment application for personal requirement is maintainable by a landlord where the premises were originally leased through an ostensible lessor?
- Fazlur Rehman Versus Ghulam Habib1980 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Republic Motors Ltd. Versus M. Anwar1980 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Sind High Court concerning the custody and disposal of five bus chassis recovered from the possession of respondent M. Anwar, who claimed a lien for work done. The petitioner had entrusted bus chassis to a contractor who misappropriated them and handed them over to the respondent. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 403 of the Pakistan Penal Code and obtained recovery and superdari, subsequently compromising with the contractor. The High Court permitted the respondent to withdraw a claimed amount upon furnishing a bank guarantee, pending a civil court decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was reasonable and just, noting that the respondent possessed a valid lien for work done, and that under special circumstances, the general rule of restoring property to the person from whom it was seized can be departed from to safeguard legitimate claims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a person in possession of property who has a lien for work done is entitled to protection of his dues upon recovery and disposal of the property?
- Can the general rule that property should be restored to the party from whom it was taken be departed from under special circumstances?
- Is an order permitting withdrawal of a claimed amount upon furnishing a bank guarantee pending civil court adjudication sustainable?
- Niamatullah Shah Versus Farmanullah1980 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the recovery of Rs. 2,000, comprising Rs. 750 for grams and Rs. 1,250 for miscellaneous goods. The trial court decreed the full claim, relying on oral evidence for the first item and copies of receipts for the second. The respondents challenged the admissibility of the copies. The appellate court modified the decree, rejecting the Rs. 1,250 claim on the grounds that the receipts were inadmissible as secondary evidence without proper justification. The High Court affirmed this decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the admissibility of the receipts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the receipts were clearly inadmissible. The Court affirmed the principle that under the Evidence Act, documents must be proved by primary evidence unless a proper case for leading secondary evidence is established under the relevant statutory provisions. As the appellant failed to produce originals or justify secondary evidence, the receipts lacked evidential value, rendering the trial court's admission of them erroneous.
Questions settled- Are copies of receipts admissible as evidence when the originals are not produced and no case for secondary evidence is established?
- Does the failure to produce original documents or justify secondary evidence render copies inadmissible under the Evidence Act?
- Can a trial court admit copies of documents into evidence despite objections regarding their admissibility?
- Manzoor Ahmad Versus Muhammad Munir1980 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a constitution petition regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question is whether a further appeal to the Member, Board of Revenue was competent under section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, given that the dispute involved a question of fact regarding the respondent's residence. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it, ruling that ignoring material evidence in arriving at a finding of fact constitutes an error of law, thereby rendering the matter amenable to further appeal under the law. The key principle laid down is that the overlooking or ignoring of material evidence by a lower appellate authority in reaching a factual conclusion gives rise to a question of law, justifying interference in further appeal.
Questions settled- Does ignoring material evidence in arriving at a finding of fact amount to an error of law under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Whether a further appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue is competent when a question of law arises from the misreading or ignoring of evidence?
- Is the residence of a candidate for the office of Lambardar subject to scrutiny in a further appeal before the Board of Revenue?
- Muhammad Yusuf Versus Asghar Hussain1980 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razaq Versus Province of Punjab1980 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Lai Muhammad Versus Government of Sind1980 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, former police officers in Karachi, challenged their dismissal from service resulting from allegations of negligence and corruption connected to a mass poisoning incident involving illicit liquor in 1974. Disciplinary action was initiated by the Superintendent of Police under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by dispensing with a formal inquiry under rule 5(3). The appellants' departmental representations failed, and their subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Sind Service Tribunal. Upon granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the show-cause notices and subsequent proceedings complied with statutory safeguards. The Supreme Court held that the show-cause notices were excessively vague and failed to communicate the necessary grounds as mandated by rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, rendering the disciplinary proceedings illegal. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred by upholding a dismissal based on untested inquiry reports without affording the appellants a proper personal hearing or opportunity to present a defense. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the dismissal orders set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether an authorised officer is required to pass an order in writing specifically for dispensing with an inquiry under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does a show-cause notice issued after dispensing with a formal inquiry satisfy statutory requirements when it fails to provide full particulars and grounds of the action proposed?
- Can a service tribunal sustain a dismissal order based partly on an inquiry report without granting the accused civil servant an opportunity to examine the material or cross-examine witnesses?
- Whether the failure to provide a personal hearing renders disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissals illegal where the accused raises complex factual defenses regarding duty assignments?
- Fazal Elabi Versus Sharifullah1980 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenges the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerned whether an interlocutory order regarding the absence of a third party's interest in the rented property was final and appealable separately, or whether fragmentary appeals against interim orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance are barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent jurisdictions does not advance the interests of justice and that parties must wait until a final order is passed before filing an appeal. The key principle laid down is that piecemeal or fragmentary litigation and appeals against interim orders in rent matters are impermissible.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is competent against an interim order passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent proceedings advance the interests of justice?
- Whether a third party claiming an interest in the property can maintain a separate appeal before a final order is passed by the Rent Controller?
- Riaz Khalil Versus Muhammad Shafiq1980 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bahadur Versus State1980 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Versus State1980 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muneer Ahmad Versus Allah Ditta1980 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
- Shahul Hamid Versus Tahir Ali1980 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the status of the appellant as a tenant of the respondent. The core legal question is whether parties can, by mutual consent or court order, waive the application of the principle of res judicata in future litigation. The appellant contended that a previous judgment, which declared him a tenant, could not be pleaded as res judicata because the respondent had withdrawn an appeal against that judgment on the express condition that the findings would not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the principle of res judicata is a matter of public policy and is mandatory under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court ruled that parties cannot contract out of this statutory provision, nor can a court order effectively nullify its operation. There is no estoppel against a statute, and any agreement or order attempting to waive the application of res judicata is void and inoperative, as it contradicts the public policy of finality in litigation.
Questions settled- Can parties to a litigation agree that a judgment shall not operate as res judicata in future proceedings?
- Is a court order allowing the withdrawal of an appeal on the condition that findings will not be treated as res judicata legally binding?
- Does the principle of res judicata constitute a matter of public policy that cannot be waived by the parties?
- Can a party be estopped from pleading the statutory bar of res judicata based on a prior agreement or court order?
- Said Mian Versus Said Baghdad1980 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the Court, upon granting leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court, possesses the power to order the arrest of the acquitted persons pending the disposal of the appeal. The core legal question revolved around whether the Supreme Court's constitutional and inherent powers include the authority to issue warrants for the arrest of an acquitted accused. The Court held in the affirmative, ruling that Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions and orders necessary for doing complete justice, including securing the attendance of any person, when read with Order XLIX Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1956, provides sufficient authority to order the detention or arrest of respondents in appropriate cases. Furthermore, the Court held that the power to order arrest or detention during the pendency of an appeal is an ancillary and incidental power to facilitate the final adjudication where the Court has jurisdiction to impose a sentence. The reference was accordingly answered, upholding the legality of the warrants issued.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan have the power to order the arrest of an acquitted person pending the disposal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Whether Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 includes the power to order the arrest of a person to secure their attendance in court?
- Is the power to order the detention of an accused during the pendency of an appeal an ancillary and incidental power to the main appellate jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Siddiq Versus Abdul Shakoor1980 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over shop title and subsequent eviction proceedings. The petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed for default by the trial court after the petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on multiple adjourned dates following a remand. The petitioner sought restoration, claiming lack of notice, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether service on the petitioner's advocate constituted valid service and whether the dismissal for default was justified. The Court held that service on the petitioner's engaged advocate was valid service on the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a prior, final High Court order that had already affirmed the validity of the service. The Court affirmed that the dismissal for default was proper due to the gross negligence of the petitioner and his counsel in failing to appear, and refused to entertain new factual arguments not raised in the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on an engaged advocate constitute valid service on the party?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument in a revision petition that was not raised in the lower courts?
- Is a suit properly dismissed for default when a party and their counsel fail to appear on multiple adjourned dates?
- Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Hajra Bi1980 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Versus State1980 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code for throwing the dead body of the victim on the roadside. The core legal questions examined were whether the act of throwing a dead body away from a burial place constitutes an indignity to a human corpse under section 297, and whether an accused can be convicted of an offence without a separate charge having been framed. The Supreme Court held that offering indignity to a human corpse with the requisite intention or knowledge falls within the purview of section 297 even if done away from a place of burial, and that a conviction can be recorded without a specific charge if all relevant facts were brought out in evidence and put to the accused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does offering indignity to a human corpse away from a place of burial fall within the purview of section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can an accused be convicted of an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code without a separate charge having been framed where all relevant facts are brought out in evidence?
- Must the clauses of section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
- Tasadiq Hussain Versus State1980 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram Versus Saeeda Begum1980 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, a local who had filed an LH transfer form that was rejected in 1959, challenged the auction and subsequent issuance of a P.T.D. in favour of the respondents after nearly two decades of delay. The core legal question involves the effect of inordinate delay, laches, and the conduct of a party seeking discretionary constitutional remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion was unexceptionable, as the petitioner was guilty of sheer negligence, laches, and estoppel by sleeping over the matter for long periods while valuable rights accrued to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will be refused to a party whose prolonged inaction and lack of diligence amount to laches and estoppel.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner is entitled to constitutional relief when guilty of prolonged delay and laches in challenging a property transfer?
- Does failure to pursue a settlement form over nearly two decades attract the bar of estoppel and laches?
- Is the High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine on the ground of sheer negligence and indifference?
- Abdul Qadir Versus Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd.1980 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the petitioner's liability as a surety for a bank loan. The core legal question was whether a surety, who failed to contest a recovery suit or challenge a consent decree in the civil courts, could subsequently invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court to dispute his liability and the execution of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner voluntarily failed to avail himself of adequate alternate remedies under civil law by not filing a written statement, appeal, or objection in the executing court, and thus lacked locus standi to maintain a writ petition. The Court laid down the principle that a party cannot bypass ordinary civil remedies and trial proceedings to challenge a civil court decree or execution through writ jurisdiction, and that a surety's liability does not automatically end merely because the debtor's heirs enter into a compromise for repayment.
Questions settled- Can a surety challenge a civil court decree or execution proceedings through a constitutional writ petition after failing to contest the original suit or file an appeal?
- Does the liability of a surety automatically come to an end simply because the heirs of the principal debtor enter into a compromise to pay the loan amount?
- What is the effect of a defendant's failure to file a written statement or raise objections in the executing court regarding their locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Sharif Versus State1980 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants appealed against the Lahore High Court judgment that reversed their acquittal by the Sessions Judge and convicted them under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased at dawn due to a land dispute, relying on ocular testimony, weapon recoveries, and motive. The trial court had acquitted the appellants due to discrepancies in ocular testimony, suspicious recoveries, and interpolations in inquest reports indicating the crime occurred during the dark hours of the night. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court appropriately reversed the acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of explaining evident alterations and interpolations in inquest reports regarding the time of occurrence. Given the uncorroborated ocular testimony, conflicting statements of interested witnesses, suspicious weapon recoveries, and probable fabrication in post-investigation recording of the FIR, reasonable doubt remained. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court convictions, and restored the trial court's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the prosecution to explain material interpolations and alterations appearing on the face of inquest reports?
- Can an appellate court rely on conjectures to overturn a trial court's finding regarding the time of occurrence and visibility at the crime scene?
- Is the omission of eye-witnesses' names from inquest reports a material defect casting doubt on the veracity and promptness of the FIR?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses where weapon recoveries are doubtful?
- Baig Muhammad Versus State1980 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
- Sharifan Versus Muhammad Yousaf1979 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-12Read full judgment →
- Four Friends Versus Domcx Boric1979 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a civil petition for special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a review of a previous order refusing a temporary injunction is warranted when subsequent events, namely the granting of permission to sue in forma pauperis, have occurred. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was misconceived because the initial refusal was justified at the time it was made, as no plaint was pending before permission to sue as a pauper was granted, and the court had also found prima facie evidence that the petitioner's claim had been satisfied. The key principle laid down is that subsequent developments, such as the later allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis, do not furnish a valid ground for reviewing a past order that was legally correct when passed, especially when fresh applications and orders can be pursued before the lower courts based on the changed circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a review of an order refusing a temporary injunction is maintainable on the ground that permission to sue in forma pauperis has subsequently been granted?
- Can provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure be invoked for granting a temporary injunction before permission to sue in forma pauperis is granted?
- Does the subsequent allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis justify the modification of a past appellate order?
- Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1979 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Co Operative Consumers Society Ltd. Versus Nadeem Nawazish Malik1979 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- Tufail Muhammad Versus Abdul Rahim Etc.1979 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review application was filed against the Supreme Court's prior order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged a Lahore High Court decision quashing a private criminal complaint. The petitioner had initiated a private complaint under sections 148, 448, 449, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the respondents after a previous police investigation into the same incident was cancelled by a Magistrate. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on two grounds: the existence of a prior civil court judgment against the petitioner regarding the dispute, and the gross delay in filing the private complaint. The Supreme Court, in its initial order, upheld the quashment primarily due to the significant delay of over a year and a half in filing the complaint. In the review proceedings, the Court reaffirmed that the petition failed to establish valid grounds for review, noting that the cited precedents were distinguishable on facts. The Court held that a private complaint filed after an inordinate delay, following the cancellation of a police case, justifies the quashment of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a private criminal complaint be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to gross delay in filing?
- Does the dismissal of a prior police investigation constitute a valid ground for the High Court to consider the delay in a subsequent private complaint?
- Is a review petition maintainable when it merely seeks to re-argue points already considered and rejected by the Court?
- Faiz Muhammad Versus Gul Khan1979 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 19th September 1978, whereby bail granted to him in a murder case by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling the petitioner's bail despite alleged previous enmity between the petitioner and his co-accused which rendered the prosecution story improbable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail because the injured complainant directly attributed a firearm injury to the petitioner in a broad-day occurrence, and no enmity or reason for false substitution was shown between the complainant and the petitioner. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where an accused is directly charged with an effective firearm injury by an injured witness in a broad-day incident, and no plausible ground for false implication by the complainant is established, the accused is prima facie connected with the crime and is not entitled to bail, notwithstanding any antecedent disputes or enmity with co-accused persons.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be cancelled when an accused is directly charged by an injured complainant for an effective firearm injury?
- Does prior enmity between an accused and a co-accused automatically render the complainant's allegation against the accused improbable for the purpose of granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when there is no suggestion of enmity between the complainant and the accused?