Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Zubaida Begum Versus Abdul Hamid1976 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-05
  settlement of displaced personsevacuee propertytransfer of propertywrit jurisdictionlachesremand proceedingsLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a property dispute involving the transfer of evacuee property under settlement laws, specifically regarding the disposal of various forms filed by occupants of a composite property in Gujranwala. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in its Letters Patent Appeal, correctly excluded certain claimants from remand proceedings for the disposal of their settlement forms, despite their claims never having been adjudicated on merits. The Supreme Court held that the previous settlement orders were limited in scope and did not dispose of the claim regarding the stable occupied by appellant Jamal Din. Consequently, the High Court erred in excluding him from the remand proceedings. Conversely, the Court upheld the exclusion of the successors of Mohammad Yousaf, as their claim had attained finality due to laches and delay in their earlier writ petition. The Court affirmed that where a claim has not been adjudicated upon by settlement authorities, a party cannot be barred from seeking relief, provided the claim is not otherwise barred by laches or finality of previous proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of laches preclude a party from participating in subsequent remand proceedings regarding the same property?
  • Can a settlement authority's order be interpreted to dispose of a claim that was never explicitly mentioned or adjudicated in the proceedings?
  • Is a party entitled to be heard in remand proceedings if their original claim for the transfer of property remains undisposed of by the settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bibi Versus Muhammad Din1976 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30
  evacuee propertysettlement schemeauction purchaserwrit jurisdictionrevisional remedyvested righttransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the disputed transfer of an evacuee house site in Kamoke, District Gujranwala. The core legal questions addressed were whether an auction purchaser acquires a vested right before confirmation, whether the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of a plot as a condition for transfer is legally valid, and whether failure to exhaust revisional remedies precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unconfirmed auction does not create a vested right in the highest bidder. The Court affirmed that the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of the plot, as stipulated in Settlement Scheme No. VI, was in excess of the statutory provisions and therefore invalid, consistent with the precedent in Mst. Mehmooda Tehseen v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah. Furthermore, the Court established that the failure to pursue a revisional remedy does not necessarily bar the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court’s order remanding the case to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh determination of the parties' rights was upheld as just and proper.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unconfirmed auction sale create a vested right in favor of the highest bidder?
  • Is the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of a plot, as contained in Settlement Scheme No. VI, legally valid?
  • Does the failure to exhaust a revisional remedy operate as an absolute bar to the invocation of writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali Shah Versus Waryam1976 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-08
  interlocutory injunctionbalance of inconveniencetemporary injunctioncivil revisionoccupancy tenantsperpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which had upheld the District Judge's order granting an interlocutory injunction in a representative suit for perpetual injunction. The respondents, claiming to be occupancy tenants in possession of land containing a khanqah and graveyard, sought to restrain the petitioner from constructing a boundary wall. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction and evaluating the balance of convenience or inconvenience. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the interlocutory injunction was rightly issued as the balance of inconvenience lay in restraining the construction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, potential demolition, and wasted expense, whereas refusing the injunction would cause greater comparative mischief. The key principle laid down is that in determining whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the true criterion is the balance of comparative inconvenience or mischief that would result from refusing or granting the relief pending the suit.

  Questions settled

  • What is the true criterion for granting an interlocutory injunction regarding the balance of convenience or inconvenience?
  • Whether an interlocutory injunction can be issued to prevent the construction of a boundary wall during the pendency of a representative suit?
  • Does the refusal of an interlocutory injunction resulting in potential multiplicity of proceedings justify the issuance of the injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanifan Bibi Versus Kalu1976 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-20
  ex parte decreespecial attorneysubstituted servicepower of attorneycivil proceduretransfer of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an ex parte decree passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Muhammad Sharif, in a suit concerning land ownership. The petitioners argued that the special attorney appointed by Muhammad Sharif, Mst. Hajran Bibi, was only authorized to represent him in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, and not in the transferee Court at Kasur where the suit was ultimately decreed. The core legal question was whether the scope of the special attorney's power of attorney was limited to a specific court or extended to the defense of the suit regardless of venue. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the special attorney was for the purpose of defending the suit generally and was not confined to any particular court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the defendant was duly represented and that substituted service was properly effected. The petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the ex parte decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a special attorney to defend a suit expire if the suit is transferred to a different court?
  • Is a special attorney's authority limited to the specific court mentioned in the power of attorney if the document authorizes the defense of the suit generally?
  • Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the defendant's attorney fails to appear after substituted service has been effected?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad Versus Khuda Bakhsh1976 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-14Read full judgment →
• Walayat Agencies. Lyalipur Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi1976 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dismissal for non-prosecutionwithdrawal of counsellack of cooperationappellant defaultSupreme Court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application by the Advocate-on-Record seeking withdrawal from the case due to the appellant's lack of cooperation in prosecuting the appeal. Both counsel retained by the appellant declined to appear at Rawalpindi, presumably due to unpaid fees, and the appellant failed to respond to a registered hearing notice sent by the Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question concerns the disposal of an appeal where the appellant fails to cooperate or ensure representation. The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for non-prosecution under such circumstances, with no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that an appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant displays total lack of cooperation, fails to instruct counsel, and neglects to make arrangements for representation at the hearing.

  Questions settled

  • What is the consequence when an appellant fails to cooperate with counsel and does not make arrangements for representation at the hearing of an appeal?
  • Can an Advocate-on-Record withdraw from a case when the appellant fails to communicate or cooperate in the prosecution of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Versus Nisar & Co.1976 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23
  lis pendensevacuee propertyallotment cancellationrehabilitation and settlement schemespecial leave to appealwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the allotment of land. The core dispute involved competing claims over land: one party (respondent No. 1) had been granted permission by the Central Government to purchase the land for industrial purposes in 1958 and had taken possession in 1962, while the other party (petitioners) had purchased the land from subsequent allottees (respondents Nos. 4 and 5) in 1965. The Settlement Commissioner had set aside the allotment to respondents Nos. 4 and 5, finding the land was not available for allotment under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having purchased the land during the pendency of litigation, were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court affirmed that the initial allotment to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was subject to appeal and revision, and the petitioners could not claim valid title against the prior, superior interest of respondent No. 1. The petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's refusal to interfere.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to property purchased during the pendency of revision proceedings before a Settlement Commissioner?
  • Can a party claim valid title to land purchased from an allottee whose allotment was subject to pending appeal and revision proceedings?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of a Settlement Commissioner where the petitioner failed to pursue an application to be impleaded in the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Begum Versus Hajira Begum1976 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Jan Versus Hussain Jan1976 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Versus Administrator Auqaf, Sind1976 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Hussain Naqvi Versus Settlement Commissioner1976 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah Versus Muhammad Jamil1976 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• Shahid Arshad Versus Muhammad Naqvi Butt1976 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Abdul Hayee1976 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-10
  murderculpable homicidesudden fightgrave and sudden provocationfourth exception to section 300weapon usedpremeditationundue advantage
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated criminal appeals arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the conviction of Abdul Hayee, who was initially sentenced to death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ghulam Abbas and one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 324 for injuring Muhammad Nawaz. The High Court had altered the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I, and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction under section 324. Muhammad Nawaz, the deceased's brother, appealed the reduction of the conviction, while Abdul Hayee appealed his conviction entirely. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court rightly applied the fourth exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the fourth exception was inapplicable because Abdul Hayee had left the scene of a sudden quarrel to fetch a formidable weapon (chhuri) from his house, thereby introducing premeditation and taking undue advantage against unarmed victims. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's alteration, restored the conviction under section 302, but modified the sentence to imprisonment for life along with a fine, maintaining the concurrent sentence for the section 324 conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the fourth exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when an accused leaves a sudden fight to fetch a weapon and returns to attack unarmed victims?
  • Does fetching a weapon during a sudden quarrel constitute premeditation and taking undue advantage under criminal law?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of the essential conditions of a sudden fight without premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarin Versus State1976 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-10
  criminal revisionenhancement of sentencegrave and sudden provocationleave to appealdischarge from jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby a revision petition filed by the complainant was accepted, restoring the trial court's sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and enhancing the fine for an offence where the petitioner chopped off his wife's nose after she disagreed to his second marriage. The core legal question was whether the High Court is barred from enhancing a sentence in revision once the convict has already served the previously reduced sentence and been discharged from jail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses the power to enhance sentences in revision depending upon the circumstances of each case, and no absolute principle of law prohibits recommittal to prison. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can enhance a sentence in revision after the convict has been discharged from jail upon serving a previously reduced sentence?
  • Does the discharge of a convict from jail operate as a bar against the enhancement of sentence by the High Court in criminal revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Versus Federation of Pakistan1976 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Gbani Versus Nawab Din1976 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munshi Versus State1976 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30
  contempt of courtfalse affidavittemporary injunctionpossession of landappellate jurisdictionsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Muhammad Munshi, filed a writ petition and an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming to be in possession of disputed land. Based on an affidavit affirming his possession, the High Court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering. It was subsequently discovered that the appellant had never been in possession of the land and that the affidavit was false. The High Court convicted the appellant for contempt of court. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including Khasra Girdawaris and statements made by the appellant's attorney in separate revenue suits, which confirmed the appellant was never in possession. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for contempt of court for filing a false affidavit. However, considering the significant delay since the appellant was granted bail in 1971, the Court substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a fine, with a default clause of imprisonment if the fine remained unpaid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a false affidavit to obtain a temporary injunction constitute contempt of court?
  • Can the Supreme Court substitute a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court with a fine due to the passage of time?
  • Is an allottee who has never been in possession of land entitled to an injunction restraining others from interfering with possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakauallah Versus State1976 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
• Rehman Dad Versus Sajawal Khan1976 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Alamdar Hussain Versus Muhammad Ramzan1976 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
• Bashir Begun Versus Muhammad Shamas Duha Ali Khan1976 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30Read full judgment →
• Maryam Begum Versus Shah Muhammad1976 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
• Aisha Begum Versus Sosan Bibi1976 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Hayat Versus S. M. Saleh1976 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad Versus Matter Hameed1976 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
• President Sarhad Chamber of Commerce and Insustries Peshawar City Versus The Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Government of Pakistan1976 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman Khan Versus Muhammad Ashraf Lodhi1976 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum Versus Abdul Aziz1976 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mulakh Bano Versus Gohar Bano1976 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Muhammad Gulzar1976 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
• Saeed-UN-Nisa Versus Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal1976 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05
  estate dutyvaluation of agricultural landproduce index unitsmarket valuetax assessmentprecedentSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order regarding the valuation of agricultural lands for estate duty purposes. The core legal question was whether the valuation formula adopted by the Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan v. The Collector of Estate Duty—based on produce index units—constituted a rule of universal application, or if the Controller of Estate Duty could lawfully utilize the average sale price of adjoining lands. The Supreme Court held that the formula in Ahmad Khan was dictated by the specific facts and circumstances of that case and was not intended to be a rule of universal application. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Controller’s valuation method, based on market sales in the vicinity, was consistent with the statutory requirement under Section 38(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which mandates that the principal value of property be estimated at the price it would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the deceased's death. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the valuation formula based on produce index units established in Ahmad Khan v. The Collector of Estate Duty a rule of universal application?
  • Does the Controller of Estate Duty have the authority to value agricultural land based on the average sale price of adjoining lands?
  • What is the statutory basis for determining the principal value of property for estate duty purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad-Aslam Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1976 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Versus Akbar Khan1976 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Federation of Pakistan1976 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05
  review petitionSupreme Court Rulessenior advocateabatementservice tribunalspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal questions concern the mandatory procedural requirements for filing a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules and the effect of subsequent legislation on pending matters. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was not filed in accordance with Orders III and V of the Supreme Court Rules, as the petition was neither signed by a Senior Advocate nor drawn and presented by the advocate who appeared at the original hearing without the requisite leave or consultation. Furthermore, the contention that the leave petition had abated under section 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 was rejected, as the petition had already been dismissed on merits, and any alternative remedy before a Service Tribunal, if available and within time, could be pursued independently. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules governing the filing and presentation of review petitions must be strictly complied with, and the dismissal of a leave petition renders arguments regarding subsequent abatement academic.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition can be entertained if it fails to comply with the procedural requirements regarding signing and drafting by advocates under the Supreme Court Rules?
  • Does the abatement of a petition for leave to appeal under section 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 provide a ground for reviewing a previously dismissed leave petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Prvince F Sind Versus Ghulam Rasool1976 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
• Prvince -of Punjab Versus Abdul Aziz1976 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-02
  land acquisitionleave to appealcondonation of delaylachescompensation assessmentcompetence of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal questions were whether the appeals were maintainable without obtaining leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution and whether the significant delay in filing applications for leave to appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were incompetent as the Provincial Government failed to obtain the requisite leave to appeal under Article 58(2) of the 1962 Constitution. Furthermore, the Court refused to condone the delay in filing the leave applications, noting that the delay was due to manifest laches by government law officers and that valuable rights had accrued to the respondents in the interim. On the merits, the Court observed that the compensation awarded was equitable, given that the land's current market value far exceeded the compensation provided. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not condone significant delays in filing leave applications where such delay results from administrative negligence and prejudices the accrued rights of the opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed without obtaining the requisite leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution competent?
  • Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing an application for leave to appeal where the delay is caused by the negligence of government law officers?
  • Does the Court have discretion to refuse condonation of delay when valuable rights have accrued to the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakina Bibi Versus Sultan1976 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Feroza Begun Versus Amtul Faroq1976 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05Read full judgment →
• Palta Versus Islamuddin1976 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Versus Nisar Ahmad1976 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-12
  dismissal for non-prosecutionadjournment requestabsence of counseljudicial timecivil appealAdvocate-on-Record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a civil appeal. The core legal question concerned the consequences of the repeated absence of counsel for the appellant, which resulted in the inability of the Court to proceed with the scheduled hearing. The appellant's lead counsel requested an adjournment via telegram due to a personal engagement in another city, while the Advocate-on-Record for the appellant was also absent without justification. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this conduct, noting that it was part of a broader pattern where multiple appeals fixed for the day could not be heard due to the absence of appellants' counsel, leaving the Court with no work. Consequently, the Court held that it had no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not tolerate the unexplained absence of legal representatives, including the Advocate-on-Record, which obstructs the administration of justice and wastes judicial time, thereby justifying the dismissal of the underlying cause for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant's counsel is absent?
  • Does the absence of an Advocate-on-Record justify the dismissal of an appeal?
  • Is a telegraphic request for adjournment sufficient to prevent the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah Versus Muhammad Jamil1976 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Abdur Razzaq1976 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus Rawalpindi Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi1976 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Mianwali1976 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
• Yusaf Hussain Siddiqi Versus Additional Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar1976 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bibi Versus Mubarak Hussain1976 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05
  evacuee propertysettlement authoritiescancellation of transfernatural justiceright to be heardcompensation bookforgery inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the cancellation of a property transfer by the Settlement Authorities. The respondent, Mubarak Hussain, purchased rights to an evacuee house and paid the balance price using a verified claim (compensation book). Years later, the petitioner alleged the compensation book was forged. Without conducting a formal inquiry or providing notice to the respondent, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer and re-allotted the property to the petitioner. The High Court remanded the case for an inquiry into the authenticity of the compensation book and directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to pay the deficiency if the document was found forged. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, holding that the Settlement Authorities acted prematurely by cancelling the transfer without first establishing the forgery through a proper inquiry or granting the respondent a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court affirmed that before such drastic action as cancellation, the authorities must verify the alleged forgery and allow the party to rectify the payment, provided they were not complicit in the fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Settlement Authorities cancel a property transfer based on an allegation of a forged compensation book without holding a formal inquiry?
  • Is a party entitled to an opportunity to make good a deficiency in the sale price of a property before the transfer is cancelled due to an invalid payment instrument?
  • Does the failure to provide notice to a party regarding an alleged forgery in their payment instrument violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azbar Khan Versus Services Tribunal, Islamabad1976 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-03
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementlimitationcondonation of delaycivil servantsupreme court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Wireless Licensee Inspector compulsorily retired on charges of misconduct, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Services Tribunal as barred by time. He contended that the delay occurred because the definition of 'civil servant' under the relevant legislation was amended only later to include persons who have been civil servants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the matter raised a question of law of general public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the refusal by the Services Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal does not constitute a question of law of general public importance, and therefore the Court cannot interfere with the Tribunal's order. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over orders of the Services Tribunal under Article 212 is strictly restricted to substantial questions of law of general public importance, excluding routine matters of limitation and condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal by the Services Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal constitute a question of law of general public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Services Tribunal regarding the limitation period when no question of law of general public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Beg Versus Gul Naz1976 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Versus Lab Din1976 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Khan Versus Maryambibi1976 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Versus Nisar & Co.1976 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  lis pendensevacuee propertyallotment cancellationspecial leave to appealtransfer of propertyrehabilitation and settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of land originally acquired for industrial purposes. Respondent No. 1 was permitted by the Central Government to purchase the land in 1958 and took possession in 1962, subsequently constructing a factory. However, the land was later erroneously allotted to Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Respondent No. 1 successfully challenged these allotments in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, who set aside the allotments on the grounds that the land was not available for such transfer. The petitioners, who had purchased the land from Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 during the pendency of the dispute, challenged the Settlement Commissioner's order via a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the petitioners, having purchased the land during ongoing litigation, were bound by the outcome of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the principle of lis pendens, as reflected in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, prevents parties from alienating property to the detriment of the opponent during pending litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of lis pendens apply to the alienation of property during pending litigation regarding its ownership?
  • Can a purchaser of land during pending litigation challenge an order passed in that litigation if they failed to pursue their application to be impleaded as a party?
  • Is land that has been validly acquired and possessed for industrial purposes available for subsequent allotment under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus Shah Muhammad1976 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Sahib Gul Versus Ziarat Gul1976 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07
  criminal appealleave to appealacquittalmurderappreciation of evidenceSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sahib Gul against the acquittal of the respondents, Ziarat Gul and Jahan Gul, who were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, for the murder of Hayat Gul. The Peshawar High Court acquitted the respondents, holding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference with the acquittal order. The Supreme Court examined the testimony, noting significant discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses, an unexplained delay in recording the statement of a key witness, and the absence of a proven motive for the crime. Holding that the High Court's assessment was supportable and that no adequate grounds existed to interfere with an order of acquittal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the assessment of evidence by the trial or high court is perverse or wholly unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court based on its appreciation of evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the statement of an eye-witness cast doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Is the absence of a proven motive a relevant factor in assessing the reliability of prosecution evidence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nur Ali Versus Muhammad Hussain1976 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Versus Niamat Ali Beg1976 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-19
  review applicationspecial leave to appealland allotmentpreferential rightcertified copies
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review application seeking review of an earlier order dated 12th July 1973, which had dismissed the petitioners' petition for special leave to appeal concerning land allotment disputes. The core legal questions involve whether heirs of a deceased person are entitled to retain excess land allotments based on a preferential claim, and whether the inability to obtain sealed certified copies of khatas constitutes a valid ground for review. The Supreme Court held that the review application lacks merit, noting that the contention regarding preferential rights was not raised during the initial hearing of the leave petition and that the respondents held a valid preferential right to the disputed lands as their claim was received earlier in time. Furthermore, the inability to substantiate claims due to sealed records is not a valid ground for review. The key principle laid down is that fresh contentions not raised at the original hearing and unsubstantiated factual grievances regarding sealed records cannot form the basis for reviewing an order dismissing a special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contention not advanced during the original hearing of a petition for special leave to appeal can be raised in a review application?
  • Does the inability to obtain certified copies of sealed village khatas constitute a sufficient ground for review?
  • Whether heirs of a deceased person can claim preference in land allotment over earlier received claims of respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Hussain Versus Muhammad Khan1976 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakbi Versus Alam Bibi1976 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-22
  settlement propertytransfer of propertydisplaced personsequitable distributionwrit jurisdictionlachesprocedural incompetence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws in Quetta. The appellant challenged the transfer of a portion of a house to the respondent, arguing that the entire property had previously been transferred to her, rendering the subsequent transfer to the respondent legally invalid. The core legal question concerned whether the settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to partition the property and transfer a portion to the respondent after the initial transfer to the appellant, and whether the appellant's procedural lapses in challenging the orders precluded her claim. The Supreme Court held that the property was divisible into two independent units, and the settlement authorities acted within their discretion to transfer the respective portions to the parties in possession. The Court found no merit in the appellant's claim, noting that she had previously declined the entire property, her subsequent appeals were procedurally incompetent, and substantial justice had been achieved by accommodating both parties. The Court affirmed that where property is divisible and in separate possession, settlement authorities may exercise discretion to transfer portions to respective occupants to ensure equitable distribution.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities partition a property and transfer portions to different occupants if the property is found to be divisible?
  • Does a party who initially declines the transfer of an entire property have the right to later claim the whole property after a portion has been transferred to another?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with the discretionary orders of settlement authorities when substantial justice has been done between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Nawab Din1976 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Versus State1976 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore Versus Ali Gul Khan1976 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23
  Public Service Commissionviva vocecharacter rollsuitability for appointmentjudicial servicecompetitive examinationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had declared that the Punjab Public Service Commission acted without lawful authority in reducing a candidate's viva voce marks on the basis of adverse entries in his character roll. The High Court had held that the Commission's role under Article 186 of the 1962 Constitution was strictly limited to conducting examinations and forwarding results, leaving the determination of suitability to the Government. The Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that the constitutional mandate to conduct examinations 'for the selection of suitable persons' empowers the Commission to assess a candidate's character and integrity. The Court ruled that examining the character rolls of candidates already in government service is a valid and long-standing practice essential for determining suitability for judicial appointments. Consequently, the Commission's powers are not restricted to the mere holding of examinations, and it is authorized to rely on character rolls to assess suitability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the functions of a Public Service Commission under Article 186 of the 1962 Constitution are limited to conducting examinations or extend to assessing the suitability of candidates?
  • Can the Punjab Public Service Commission lawfully examine and rely upon the character rolls of government servant candidates to determine their suitability for judicial appointments?
  • Does the term 'recommendations' in recruitment rules bind the government to the Commission's findings on a candidate's suitability?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bibi Versus Muhammad Din1976 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertySettlement Scheme No. VIpublic auctionwrit jurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by special leave arises from a dispute over an evacuee property house site in Kamoke, District Gujranwala. The core legal questions concern whether rights acquired by the highest bidder at a public auction under Settlement Scheme No. VI could be affected by a belated claim form, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside settlement orders where the occupant allegedly failed to meet construction requirements for eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order remanding the case for fresh determination was proper, noting that auction proceedings remained unconfirmed, no vested rights accrued to the bidder, and the occupant's claim form had never been properly considered by the authorities. The Court laid down that requirements in a scheme going beyond statutory provisions cannot bar eligibility, and that failure to exhaust revisional remedies does not bar writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can rights acquired by the highest bidder at an auction under Settlement Scheme No. VI be affected by a belated claim form filed by an occupant?
  • Does failure to have recourse to an available revisional remedy necessarily operate as a bar to the invocation of writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether a requirement contained only in a settlement scheme that is in excess of the relevant statutory provision can operate as a bar to the transfer of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali Versus State1976 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-11
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitsection 403 CrPCdelay in criminal prosecutionlimitation in criminal casesforgeryprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which set aside the discharge of the appellants by the Special Judge and remitted the case for trial on merits. The core legal questions involve whether the previous acquittal of the appellants operates as a bar to their subsequent prosecution under the principle of double jeopardy, and whether delay in criminal proceedings warrants the quashing of a trial. The Supreme Court held that section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar the second prosecution because the transactions and accusations in the two cases are entirely distinct. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that limitation does not apply to criminal prosecutions and delay alone does not furnish a ground for discharging accused persons of serious offences or constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous acquittal bar a subsequent prosecution when the transactions and accusations in the two cases are entirely different?
  • Does limitation apply to criminal prosecutions in Pakistani law?
  • Can delay in the commencement or conclusion of a criminal trial alone serve as a ground to quash proceedings or discharge an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus Samundar Khan1976 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
• Noorul Versus State1976 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus State1976 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-08
  double murderocular testimonysifting grain from chaffabsconsionmitigating circumstancesfamily honourcommutation of sentencefirst information report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentences of the appellant for the double murder of two brothers, Khushi Muhammad and Niamet. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony that contained exaggerations and improvements at the trial stage, the consistency of the medical evidence with the eyewitness account, the evidentiary value of the appellant's long absconsion, and the existence of mitigating circumstances regarding family honour. The Supreme Court held that the principle of sifting grain from chaff applies, allowing the court to rely on an eyewitness's testimony against the principal accused despite exaggerations implicating others. The Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence for the murder of Niamet, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life for the murder of Khushi Muhammad due to mitigating circumstances involving family honour arising from the elopement of the appellant's sister with the deceased. The key principle laid down is that minor exaggerations or false implication of co-accused do not warrant the wholesale rejection of an eyewitness's testimony if it is natural, corroborated by prompt reporting, and supported by medical evidence and absconsion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entire testimony of an eyewitness must be rejected if he exaggerates or falsely implicates some co-accused at the trial stage?
  • Can absconsion for a prolonged period serve as a corroborative circumstance to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Whether involvement in a matter concerning family honour constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
  • Is there an essential contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence when the eyewitness does not specify the precise distance from which shots were fired?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmad Versus State1976 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-10
  pre-arrest bailmurder conspiracybail cancellationabsent accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the appellant sought pre-arrest bail, having been implicated in a multiple murder case allegedly committed at his instance while he was out of the country. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed at the pre-trial stage to believe the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, given his admitted absence from Pakistan on the date of the incident. The Supreme Court held that it was premature at this stage to conclude the appellant's guilt based on the disputed material and motive evidence, making it a fit case for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's absence from the country on the date of the crime is admitted and the incriminating evidence requires evaluation at trial, pre-trial bail may be granted, subject to cancellation by the trial court if satisfactory prima facie evidence emerges during commitment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the accused was out of the country on the date of the alleged crime?
  • Can bail granted by the Supreme Court be cancelled by the trial court or Magistrate if satisfactory evidence appears during commitment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Waris Muhammad Versus Ahmad Yar1976 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-21
  post-arrest bailmurderdelayed FIRcriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who along with three co-accused was committed to the Court of Session under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail notwithstanding his commitment for trial and the allegation of firing the fatal shot, given the delayed naming of the accused in the first information report and the peculiar circumstances of the investigation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, granting bail to the petitioner. The holding establishes that where the reliability of the initial report and the identification of the accused during investigation are subject to serious questions, post-arrest bail may be granted even after commitment to the trial court, without delving into the final guilt or innocence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can post-arrest bail be granted after the accused has been committed to the Court of Session for trial under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a significant delay in naming the accused in the first information report constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Will an appellate court interfere with the refusal of bail by lower courts when the circumstances of the investigation warrant relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus State1976 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  private defenseself-defenseculpable homicideperverse judgmentexceeding right of private defensemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the trial court's acquittal of the appellant for murder and convicted him under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for exceeding the right of private defense. The core legal question was whether the appellant's plea of private defense was reasonably established given the circumstances of the altercation. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's finding of self-defense was perverse. The Court reasoned that the deceased, who was cutting fodder, possessed a sickle as a tool of his trade, not as a weapon of offense, and the appellant had sustained no injuries during the incident. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the mere presence of an agricultural tool in the hands of a victim does not create a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt sufficient to justify the use of lethal force in private defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of an agricultural tool by a deceased person, in the context of his daily work, automatically create a reasonable apprehension of danger justifying the use of lethal force?
  • Can a plea of private defense be sustained when the accused has suffered no injuries during the alleged altercation?
  • Under what circumstances can a trial court's finding of self-defense be characterized as perverse by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz Versus State1976 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner,Mianwali1976 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07
  limitationcondonation of delaybarred by timesufficient causepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal which is barred by 82 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay under the law, specifically addressing confusion regarding the date of the High Court judgment and the petitioner's alleged illness. The court held that the explanation provided was unsatisfactory as each day of delay beyond the prescribed period must be explained, and the petitioner's medical condition did not prevent him from giving timely instructions for filing the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that an applicant seeking condonation of delay must satisfactorily explain each day of delay beyond the period of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether confusion regarding the date of the High Court judgment constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay?
  • Does illness of a petitioner automatically justify the condonation of delay without explaining each day of default?
  • Is it mandatory for an applicant to explain each day of delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Versus State1976 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan Versus Consolidation Officer, Daska, District Sialkot1976 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Samma Versus State1976 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-10
  pre-arrest bailattempted murderabductionprohibitory clausecriminal procedureFirst Information Reportmedical report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the accused against the Lahore High Court's order refusing pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 365, and 506/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequently added offences. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the First Information Report and the medical report prima facie established offences under section 307 (attempted murder) or section 367 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the material on record did not prima facie disclose a clear case under section 307 or section 367, and that the High Court erred in importing a new offence not laid down in the First Information Report. The Court laid down the principle that for the purposes of bail, courts must evaluate whether the specific ingredients of an offence—such as injuries being imminently dangerous to life or abduction for specific statutory purposes—are prima facie made out from the record, rather than conjecturing uncharged offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the addition of an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is justified where the medical report does not show injuries imminently dangerous to life?
  • Can a court deny bail by importing a new offence not alleged in the First Information Report?
  • Whether mere abduction without specific statutory intent satisfies the ingredients of section 367 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances should accused persons be granted bail when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been enlarged on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus State1976 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Hassan Versus Stake1976 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus State1976 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-05
  culpable homicidejudicial admissionprivate defencecriminal appealevidentiary value of confessionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the trial court and the High Court had rejected the testimony of eye-witnesses but relied upon the appellant's judicial admissions. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of such admissions when the prosecution's primary evidence was discarded. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was justified. The Court reasoned that the appellant's consistent admissions before the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, coupled with the medical evidence showing the deceased suffered multiple injuries and strangulation, excluded the possibility of third-party involvement. Although the appellant attempted to invoke the right of private defence, the Court found that the nature and extent of the injuries indicated an excess of that right. Consequently, the Court affirmed that judicial admissions, when corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt, thereby upholding the conviction under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's judicial admissions when eye-witness testimony is rejected?
  • Does the admission of causing injuries while pleading private defence constitute sufficient evidence for a conviction under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the possibility of third-party involvement excluded when an accused admits to causing injuries and transporting the victim to the police station?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulakh Ban Versus Ghar Ban1976 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Additional Settlement Commissioner1976 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealhistorical grantadverse possessionco-sharerssettlement authoritiesinheritance rightsproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners and respondents sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding the devolution of land allotted in lieu of a special historical grant. The core legal question involved the interpretation of Condition No. 4 of the grant concerning the expiry of rent-free tenure for three lives and the subsequent vesting of proprietary rights in the heirs of the original grantee. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim of exclusive ownership based on adverse possession against the Government was untenable, as possession of one co-sharer is deemed possession for all co-sharers. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower authorities and the High Court correctly interpreted Condition No. 4 of the Conditions of Grant in determining the rights of the parties. The key principle laid down is that possession by a co-sharer operates on behalf of all co-sharers, and rights under historical conditional grants must be strictly determined according to their specific stipulated terms.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer claim exclusive ownership of land on the basis of adverse possession against other co-sharers?
  • Whether proprietary rights under a historical conditional grant vest in all heirs of the original grantee upon the lapse of the grant?
  • Does possession of one co-sharer operate on behalf of all co-sharers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Durab Khan1976 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Saeed Versus Government F West Pakistan1976 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-12
  non-prosecutiondismissal of appealdefault of appearanceadjournment requestappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the appellant, Muhammad Umar Saeed, against the Government of West Pakistan. The proceedings were scheduled for hearing, but the appellant's counsel, Mr. Nemat Khan, submitted a telegraphic request for an adjournment citing sickness. The Court observed that while it might have considered the request for adjournment due to the counsel's illness, there was no justification provided for the absence of the Advocate-on-Record, Sh. Abdul Karim. Furthermore, the Court noted that with only three appeals fixed for the day and none capable of being heard due to the default of appearance by the respective counsel, there was no business to occupy the Court's time. Consequently, expressing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs regarding the lack of professional diligence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for proper representation and the consequences of failing to appear before the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the counsel fails to appear?
  • Does the absence of an Advocate-on-Record justify the dismissal of an appeal despite a telegraphic adjournment request from the lead counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Muhammad Versus State1976 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ullah Hussain Versus Sardar Alam1976 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
• Wahid Baksh Versus State1976 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-12
  interim bailbail pending appealconvictionpre-emption of appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of interim bail by the High Court to the petitioners, who had appealed their convictions and sentences under sections 148, 459, 366, and 323 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting interim bail pending an appeal against conviction where granting such relief would pre-empt the main subject matter of the appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that granting interim bail under such circumstances is not feasible as it would pre-empt the appeal. The key principle laid down is that interim bail pending an appeal against conviction will generally be refused if it has the effect of pre-empting the central subject matter of the pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim bail can be granted by an appellate court when it would pre-empt the subject matter of the pending appeal against conviction?
  • Does the refusal of interim bail by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the appeal itself is awaiting hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Ahmed Shah Versus Mirwaiz Muhammad Abdullah1976 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
• Hayat Bibi Versus Muhammad Khan1976 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Versus State1976 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Resident Editor Versus Daily "Jang", Rawalpindi Notice to1976 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Versus Ghulam Muhammad1976 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-14
  pre-emptionabatement of appeallegal representativesjoint pre-emptorslimitationretrospective operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two civil petitions for leave to appeal concerning pre-emption suits. The core legal questions involved whether the death of one of the joint pre-emptors resulted in the total abatement of the second appeals and whether the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1971 applied retrospectively to save the appeals, alongside the nature of the right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that since the right of pre-emption was claimed jointly by the two brothers, the failure to implead the legal representatives of the deceased pre-emptor within the period of limitation caused the appeals to abate in toto, and that the Law Reforms Ordinance did not operate retrospectively to undo an abatement that occurred prior to its enforcement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a pre-emption right is heritable under the cited jurisprudence. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of one of the joint pre-emptors without bringing his legal representatives on record within the limitation period result in the total abatement of the appeal?
  • Does the amendment of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1971 operate retrospectively to undo an abatement that occurred prior to its coming into force?
  • Is a right of pre-emption claimed jointly by co-plaintiffs severable upon the death of one of them?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Inayat Ali Versus Ghulam Kuhammad1976 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-14
  pre-emptionabatement of appeallegal representativeslimitation periodretrospective operationjoint pre-emptionheritability of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions arising from pre-emption suits where the petitioner challenged the abatement of two second appeals following the death of one of the joint pre-emptors, Fazal Muhammad. The petitioner failed to implead the legal representatives of the deceased pre-emptor within the prescribed limitation period, leading the High Court to order the abatement of the appeals. The petitioner subsequently sought to set aside the abatement, arguing that the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1971, saved the appeals and that the right of pre-emption was personal and not heritable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1971, does not operate retrospectively to revive proceedings that had already abated prior to its enactment. Furthermore, the Court rejected the contention that the right of pre-emption was merely personal, relying on established precedent that such rights are heritable. The Court also held that because the right of pre-emption was claimed jointly by the brothers, the failure to implead the legal representatives of the deceased co-plaintiff resulted in the total abatement of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1971, have retrospective effect to undo the abatement of appeals that occurred prior to its enforcement?
  • Does the right of pre-emption survive the death of a pre-emptor during the pendency of a suit?
  • Does the failure to implead the legal representatives of one joint pre-emptor result in the total abatement of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussan Jan Versus Abdul Rahman1976 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-09
  evacuee propertysettlement schemetransfer of propertyauction cancellationspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the transfer and auction of an evacuee house. The petitioner, an old tenant and allottee, had her initial transfer set aside in ex parte proceedings, and her subsequent challenges up to the revision before the Settlement Commissioner were dismissed in October 1964 and left unchalleged. Meanwhile, auction proceedings regarding the property continued, involving defaults by the auction-purchaser and subsequent cancellation and re-transfers under differing administrative orders. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner could claim rights to the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII when her previous challenges had attained finality and the auction cancellation proceedings were still pending. The Supreme Court held that the unchalleged order of October 1964 attained finality, restricting the petitioner to claims under the new Scheme No. VIII, under which she was not eligible as the auction cancellation had not yet finally terminated. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unchalleged revisional order by a Settlement Commissioner attain finality?
  • Can a party claim property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII while auction cancellation proceedings remain pending?
  • Does the issuance of a P.T.D. vest rights when underlying litigation is still pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Wall Muhammad Gut Muhammad Versus National Bank of Pakistan1976 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Settlement Commissioner Lahore1976 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-29
  review petitionsettlement authorityregistered sale deedmutationproperty transferresidential allotmentfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a civil petition regarding the transfer of a property known as a 'Chaubara'. The petitioner challenged the finding that the property was situated in a predominantly commercial area, arguing that no Settlement Authority had made such a determination and that the Chaubara was part of his residential allotment. The Supreme Court re-examined the findings of the Settlement Commissioner, noting that the Commissioner had concluded as a matter of fact that the Chaubara was not part of the residential portion transferred to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the validity of a registered sale deed used to support this finding, specifically rejecting the claim that the deed was invalid due to a lack of attested mutation. The Court held that a registered sale deed does not become void merely because the mutation in respect of the sale has not been attested. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, affirming the original order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a registered sale deed become void if the mutation in respect of the sale is not attested?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a finding of fact made by a Settlement Authority in a review petition?
  • Is a Chaubara considered part of a residential portion if it is not explicitly transferred as such?
  Read full judgment →
• Kubra Begum Versus Muhammad Yahya Khan1976 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-24
  appointment of receiverdisputed giftspecial jurisdictionpetition for leave to appealprotection of interests
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court refusing to appoint a receiver for certain disputed property and discharging a receiver of property in possession of the petitioners, while imposing conditions to protect the respective interests of both parties. The core legal question concerns the propriety of declining to appoint a receiver where a gift of property is disputed by legal heirs but prima facie supported by a declaration of gift by the late donor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's order was in aid of justice and did not warrant interference under special jurisdiction, clarifying that observations made by the High Court pertained only to the refusal to appoint a receiver and had no bearing on the merits of the main suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order refusing to appoint a receiver in exercise of its special jurisdiction?
  • Does an order refusing to appoint a receiver have a bearing on the merits of the main suit?
  • Can conditions be imposed on contesting parties to protect their respective interests pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• President Sarhad Chamber of Commerce Versus Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Bord Government of Pakistan1976 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Zariful Hasnan Versus Muhammad Ilyas1976 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-10Read full judgment →
• Taufail Ahmed Shah Versus Water & Power Development Authority1976 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-09
  electricity ratesunilateral increasetubewellcontractual agreementregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a Regular Second Appeal concerning a dispute over electricity rates charged by WAPDA to the petitioner for a agricultural tubewell. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could unilaterally increase electricity consumption rates in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court held that since the agreement explicitly reserved the right for the respondent to vary rates unilaterally, the increase was valid and the lower courts rightly dismissed the petitioner's suit. The key principle laid down is that contractual terms permitting unilateral rate variation by a utility provider, when agreed upon, are enforceable and binding on the consumer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a utility provider can unilaterally increase electricity rates if the agreement reserves such power?
  • Is a unilateral increase in electricity charges enforceable when sanctioned by the terms of the contract between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Begum Versus Settlement Department1976 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil reviewleave to appealdelay and lacheslocus standinon-evacuee propertyvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil 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 involved whether inordinate and unexplained delay of fifteen years in challenging an administrative decision, coupled with a failure to establish locus standi and the creation of third-party rights, could defeat a claim regarding non-evacuee property. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was devoid of merit because the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the massive delay, did not substantiate her claim of being the daughter of the original property owner when her identity was challenged, and third-party rights had accrued in the meantime. The court laid down the principle that in civil matters, each day's delay must be satisfactorily explained, and a claimant cannot defeat the defense of laches and delay without establishing a clear locus standi and diligence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inordinate delay of fifteen years without satisfactory explanation can defeat a claim for non-evacuee property?
  • Does a person whose identity and relationship to the original owner are disputed have locus standi to claim property without establishing such relationship?
  • Can a review petition be entertained when third-party rights have already accrued and been settled in the intervening period?
  Read full judgment →
• Z. A. Ammin Versus Muslim Insurance Co. Ltd.1976 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-10
  debt adjustmentsuspense accountcreditor-debtor relationshipexecution proceedingspayment receiptunfair practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a payment of Rs. 30,000 made by the petitioner to the respondent, Muslim Insurance Company Ltd., for which a stamped receipt was issued. The core legal question was whether the respondent company was entitled to withhold credit for this payment by placing it in a suspense account, citing that the payment was made by the petitioner's husband, who was also a debtor to the company. The Supreme Court held that the respondent acted unfairly. The Court determined that if the money was received on behalf of the petitioner, it must be credited to her account, regardless of the husband's separate indebtedness. The Court allowed the petition, treating it as an appeal, and directed the respondent to adjust the Rs. 30,000 against the petitioner's dues in the pending execution proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a creditor cannot unilaterally divert funds received from a specific debtor into a suspense account to satisfy the debts of a third party, even if that third party is a relative, when a valid receipt has been issued to the original payer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a creditor unilaterally place a payment received from a specific debtor into a suspense account to satisfy the debt of a third party?
  • Is a debtor entitled to credit for a payment made to a company when a valid receipt has been issued in their name?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahim & Company Versus National Bank of Pakistan1976 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →