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. 232594 judgments in total.
- SATT BHARI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1982 CLC 533 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-14Read full judgment →
- SARWAR' vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 809 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- SARGODHA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND Another vs NEW1982 PLD Karachi 627 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for an insurance claim, primarily on the grounds that the suit was time-barred under the insurance policy's terms and that the insured had suppressed material facts. The core legal question was whether a clause in an insurance contract limiting the insurer's liability to a period shorter than the statutory limitation period violates Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act 1872. The Court held that such a clause is valid and enforceable, distinguishing between a clause that restricts the time to file a suit (which is void) and a clause that limits the duration of the insurer's liability (which is permissible). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the suppression of material facts regarding the true owner's substantial interest in the insured business justified the repudiation of the policy. Additionally, the Court clarified that under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a respondent may support a decree on grounds decided against them without filing a cross-appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a clause in an insurance policy limiting the insurer's liability to a period shorter than the statutory limitation period violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Can a respondent support a decree on grounds decided against them in the trial court without filing a cross-appeal?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding the true ownership or interest in an insured business entitle an insurer to repudiate liability?
- Is there a legal distinction between a clause that restricts the time to file a suit and a clause that limits the duration of liability for the purpose of the Contract Act 1872?
- SARFRAZ AHMED vs PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs MUHAMMAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs GHULAM SARWAR1982 CLC 1877 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
- SARDARA AND OTHERS REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE SARDARA AND Other ILAHI BAKHSH AND Other1982 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Din and for causing injuries to others. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants acted in self-defence or engaged in a premeditated combat, and whether the sentences imposed by the trial court were appropriate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the incident did not involve a valid exercise of the right of private defence, as the evidence established that the combat was premeditated, with both parties knowingly and deliberately taking the risk of the encounter. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the convictions or the sentences awarded. The judgment reinforces the principle that where parties enter into a premeditated fight, the plea of self-defence is unavailable, and participants are held accountable for their individual and collective acts. The Court further upheld the trial court's assessment of evidence and the rejection of the defence version, maintaining the sentences as appropriate under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a plea of private defence be sustained in a case of premeditated combat?
- Does a premeditated encounter between two parties negate the right of self-defence?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the prosecution's evidence subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Sardar SHAUKAT ALI, ADVOCATE AND 2 Others vs SHAMIM AHMED BEG, ADVOCATE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI, ADVOCATE AND 2 Others vs SHAMIM AHMED BEG, ADVOCATE AND 8 OTHERS1982 CLC 1877 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI, ADVOCATE AND 2 Others vs SHAMIM AHMED BEG, ADVOCATE AND 8 OTHER1982 CLC 1877 (2) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sardar SALEEM HAIDER vs Rao MUHAMMAD AFZAL1982 CLC 927 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUJRAT CANTT ETC.-1982 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs ANARAS KHAN1982 CLC 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs ANARA S KHAN1982 CLC 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs MOO KHADIM HUSSAIN AND Other GHULAM HUSSAIN AND Other THE STATE1982 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ANWER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1982 PLC (C. S.) 300 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. HABIB KHATOON AND 6 Otmrs.1982 CLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-12Read full judgment →
- Sardar M. SHAKOOR KHAN vs PAKISTAN ETC.1982 CLC 1891 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar M. SHAKOOR KHAN vs PAKISTAN Etc1982 CLC 1891 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar FATEH KHAN vs DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION, GHQ1982 PLC (C. S.) 207 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- SARDAR BEGUM vs Malik MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI SHAHEEN vs DISTRICTC MAGISTRTE AND Other1982 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI KHAN vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL_DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI CHOHAN AND OTHERS vs KARACHI GAS Co. LTD.1982 PLC 467 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
- SANYAL SHAH vs ASGHAR ALI AND Other1982 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner altering property areas after permanent transfer deeds (P.T.Ds.) had been issued. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to alter, amend, or set aside a permanent transfer deed and vary property areas after title has passed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The court holds that once a P.T.D. is issued, the settlement authorities become functus officio and cannot invoke revisional powers to substantially vary property descriptions or areas unless fraud or misrepresentation is alleged and established in accordance with the applicable rules. The petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
Questions settled- Do settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed?
- Can settlement authorities alter or amend a permanent transfer deed and vary property areas without allegations of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Whether revisional powers under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 can be invoked to set aside a completed transfer after the deletion of rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules?
- SANAULLAH vs MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND Another1982 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the superdari (custody) of a vehicle involved in a criminal case. The petitioner, accused of offenses under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged the High Court's decision to restore the vehicle's custody to the respondent, which had initially been granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a regulatory order concerning the interim custody of property during the investigation stage of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts based their decisions on prima facie evidence supporting the respondent's claim and the case remained at the investigation stage, it would not interfere with the High Court's order. The court affirmed that such regulatory orders, absent a significant question of law, do not warrant Supreme Court intervention at the investigation stage, though the petitioner remains free to reassert his claim if further evidence emerges.
Questions settled- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order regarding the interim custody of property during the investigation stage of a criminal case?
- Does a regulatory order concerning the superdari of a vehicle involve a question of law sufficient to warrant Supreme Court intervention?
- SANAULLAH CHEEMA vs Syed HAIDER SHAH AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitutional Writ Petition by the High Court, which had upheld an eviction order against the petitioner. During proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel had sought additional time to vacate the premises on the specific undertaking that the petitioner would voluntarily deliver possession to the respondent landlord without raising further objections. The High Court granted the requested time based on this undertaking. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a tenant who obtains an extension of time to vacate premises by giving an undertaking to voluntarily surrender possession can subsequently challenge the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that after giving an unconditional undertaking to surrender possession and utilizing the time granted, the petitioner waived all rights to object to the eviction and possessed no animus revertendi. Consequently, the petition was held not maintainable, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a party who obtains time to vacate premises upon giving an undertaking to surrender possession later challenge the eviction order?
- Does an unconditional undertaking given to the court to vacate premises constitute a waiver of the right to appeal against the eviction?
- SANATTA AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1982 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to two petitioners accused in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving two fatalities and four injured persons. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because of inconsistency between the eye-witness account in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence regarding the specific roles assigned to them, and further claimed parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that parity did not apply as the co-accused had no overt act attributed to him, whereas specific roles were assigned to the petitioners. The Court ruled that inconsistencies between medical evidence and F.I.R. accounts are matters for trial and do not automatically mandate bail under Section 497(2) at the preliminary stage, especially when blood-stained weapons were recovered and vicarious liability provisions applied.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical evidence and the F.I.R. regarding an accused's specific role automatically entitle the accused to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused claim bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail when the co-accused had no overt act attributed to him while the petitioner was assigned a specific role?
- Are inconsistencies between eye-witness accounts and medical reports to be deeply evaluated at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- SAMIULLH vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF WORKS AND 5 OTHERS1982 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH vs MANSUR ALI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH vs MANSUR ALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- SALMA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1982 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- SALIM KHALID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- SALIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs MESSRS BURHANI TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 973 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge staying the applicant's subsequent suit for recovery of Rs. 20,450 pending the disposal of an earlier suit for Rs. 3,550 in the Small Causes Court, both involving a breach of the same contract. The core legal question was whether Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to stay a subsequent suit when the previously instituted suit is pending in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 10 are inapplicable because the Small Causes Court does not possess concurrent jurisdiction and its decision would not operate as res judicata. Consequently, the court set aside the stay order, but in the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting decisions, it exercised its powers under Section 24 of the Code to transfer the earlier suit to the court of the Senior Civil Judge for both suits to be tried together. The key principle laid down is that for Section 10 C.P.C. to apply, the court in which the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
Questions settled- Whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies when the previously instituted suit is pending in a court that lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit?
- Does a decision rendered by a Small Causes Court operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Can a subsequent suit be stayed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the strict conditions of Section 10 are not met?
- Does a High Court have the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to transfer a previously instituted suit to another court to be tried together with a subsequent suit arising from the same contract?
- SALIM FOOT-WEAR vs ABDUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- SALIM FOOT WEAR vs ABDUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER.1982 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- SALEH vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, HYDERABAD1982 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses a series of miscellaneous applications, criminal appeals, confirmation cases, and writ petitions concerning the grant of the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which provides for the adjustment of the period of detention as an undertrial prisoner against the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether section 382-B is procedural or substantive, whether a disposed-of criminal case can be reviewed under section 561-A to grant this benefit despite the bar under section 369, and whether a constitutional petition is competent against jail authorities for its enforcement without a court order. The court held that section 382-B is a procedural provision operating retrospectively, that the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 561-A to entertain miscellaneous applications for granting this benefit in already disposed-of cases without violating section 369, and that a writ petition is not maintainable against jail authorities in the absence of a specific court order under section 382-B. The key principles laid down relate to the retroactive procedural nature of sentence-computation provisions and the procedural mechanism for claiming undertrial detention credit via inherent powers.
Questions settled- Is section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a procedural provision having retrospective effect?
- Can the High Court entertain a miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of section 382-B in a case already disposed of, notwithstanding the bar contained in section 369?
- Will a lesser sentence awarded by a court create a presumption that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has already been taken into consideration?
- Is a constitutional petition competent against jail authorities or the Home Secretary for the enforcement of section 382-B in the absence of an order from a competent court of law?
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-27Read full judgment →
- SALEEM BUTT vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 674 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AND Another vs Malik JALALUDDIN AND 7 Other1982 PLD SC 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the double allotment of agricultural land under Martial Law Regulation No. 89. The appellants, successors-in-interest of Mst. Sahib Bibi, challenged the High Court's decision, relying on a compromise application filed by the original respondent, Malik Jalaluddin, which admitted Sahib Bibi’s prior allotment. The core legal question was whether an admission made by a predecessor-in-interest, after transferring his interest in the subject matter, is binding upon his successor-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that such an admission is not binding. The Court affirmed that under Section 18 of the Evidence Act 1872, statements made by a predecessor are only receivable as admissions against a successor if made during the continuance of the interest. Once the interest is transferred, the privity ceases, and subsequent statements cannot bind the successor. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to dispose of the writ petition based on a compromise that did not include the consent of all affected petitioners. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the finality of the earlier departmental orders regarding the land allotment.
Questions settled- Does an admission made by a predecessor-in-interest after transferring his interest bind the successor-in-interest?
- Under Section 18 of the Evidence Act 1872, are statements made by a predecessor-in-interest admissible against a successor if made after the transfer of interest?
- Can a writ petition be disposed of based on a compromise application that lacks the consent of all co-petitioners?
- SALAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 250 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- SALAMATULLAH AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHANG AND Other1982 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the classification of property in Chiniot town, specifically whether the land in question constitutes a 'house' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, or agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioners claimed the property was a house because its value exceeded Rs. 10,000, while the respondent relied on an earlier allotment confirming it as agricultural land. Lower authorities and the High Court rejected the petitioners' claim, largely on the basis that the land's status as agricultural had become final and could not be challenged. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court failed to adequately address the contention regarding the statutory definition of a 'house' and potentially misread the record concerning the sub-judice status of that specific question. The core legal question is whether the property qualifies as a 'house' under the 1958 Act, given its valuation, and whether the High Court erred in precluding this determination based on the finality of prior administrative orders.
Questions settled- Does a property with a structure valued above Rs. 10,000 qualify as a 'house' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a High Court dismiss a writ petition on the grounds of finality of an administrative order if the underlying legal question of property classification remains sub-judice?
- SALAMAT ALI vs MAQBOOL ILAHI AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 704 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN SHAH vs ASGHAR ALI Alias ZULFIQAR ALI1982 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed lower judgments decreeing a declaratory suit challenging a 99-year lease of ancestral agricultural land executed by an occupancy-tenant. The core legal questions involved whether the statutory extinction of occupancy rights and their conversion into proprietary rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 extinguished the lease, whether the land ceased to be ancestral upon such merger of rights, and whether Muslim law heirs were competent to challenge alienations previously governed by custom. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, ruling that the extinguishment of occupancy rights would not benefit the lessee, that the land retained its ancestral character for the purposes of controlling alienation, and that Muslim law heirs are legally competent to challenge such alienations. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the statutory conversion of occupancy rights into proprietary rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 extinguish a lease previously granted by the occupancy-tenant?
- Does the merger of occupancy rights with proprietary rights alter or destroy the ancestral character of the land for the purpose of challenging alienations?
- Can Muslim law heirs challenge an alienation of ancestral land where succession was previously governed by customary law?
- SAJJADA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1982 CLC 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- SAJJA D HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
- SAJID ALI vs PCSIR LABORATORIES, PESHAWAR1982 PLC 1079 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- SAJANDASS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- SAIN MUHAMMAD vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GOJRA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 847 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- SAILABDIN vs GUL JAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondents by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case. The respondents were charged with the murder of Hukam Din and the attempted murder of Noor Mali Khan following a violent encounter. The trial court had convicted the respondents, finding that a "free fight" occurred where both parties knowingly engaged in combat, thereby excluding the right of private defence and rendering each participant liable for their individual acts. The High Court, however, acquitted the accused, citing the interested nature of the prosecution witnesses and the delay in reporting the incident. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment. The Court found the prosecution witnesses credible, noting that their testimony was consistent with medical evidence regarding the positioning of the assailants. The Court affirmed the principle that in a free fight, where parties anticipate resistance and deliberately engage, no right of private defence arises. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and restored the trial court's convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Does the right of private defence arise in a case of a free fight where both parties knowingly engage in combat?
- Is an accused person liable for their individual acts in a free fight when the common object fails?
- Can an acquittal be set aside by the Supreme Court when the High Court misapprehends the credibility of consistent eye-witnesses?
- SAIFULLAH KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB1982 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a property transfer. The core legal questions were whether the cancellation of a transfer obtained through fraudulent and forged documents was legally competent, and whether findings of fact regarding fraud and lack of entitlement made by settlement authorities are amenable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the settlement authorities correctly exercised their jurisdiction to cancel a transfer obtained through fraud and forgery. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by specialized settlement tribunals, particularly regarding the authenticity of documents and entitlement to transfer, are not subject to re-evaluation in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that a petitioner who does not approach the court with clean hands is disentitled to relief in writ proceedings. The judgment reinforces that a transfer document, such as a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), lacks legal sanctity if it is predicated upon a forged Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) or if the property was not legally available for transfer.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact regarding fraud and entitlement made by settlement authorities be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a writ petition liable to be dismissed if the petitioner does not approach the court with clean hands?
- Does a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) possess legal sanctity if it is issued on the basis of a forged Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.)?
- Can a transfer of property be set aside if the transferee obtained the transfer through fraudulent means and ante-dated documents?
- SAIFUDDIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Etc.1982 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning the determination of his seniority. The core legal questions involve whether an ad hoc appointment can be deemed regularized by the mere efflux of time due to departmental delays, and whether seniority can be claimed from the date of an ad hoc appointment or surplus absorption without clearance from the Public Service Commission where required by rules. The Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointments cannot be regularized by mere passage of time or efflux of time, and do not confer any right to seniority from the initial date of such appointment unless regularized in accordance with the applicable rules through the Public Service Commission. The Court laid down the principle that ad hoc appointments, being outside the purview of service rules, do not receive protection under them and cannot form the basis for claiming retrospective seniority.
Questions settled- Can an ad hoc appointment be deemed regularized by the mere efflux of time?
- Does an ad hoc appointment confer a right to seniority from the initial date of such appointment?
- Is a reference to the Public Service Commission necessary for the regular absorption of a surplus government employee against a post meant for direct recruitment having different qualifications?
- Can confirmation in a vacancy take place during the subsistence of another person's lien on that vacancy?
- SAIFUDDIN vs CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OtherPLD 1982. Quetta 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- SAID RASOOL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOUSING &1982 PLC (C. S.) 441 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- SAID RAHMAN AND Another And NASEEB GUL vs THE States GULAB KHAN AND Another1982 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHOREAND OTHER1982 CLC 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERSs1982 CLC 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- SAID KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND Another1982 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the Peshawar High Court's judgment upholding the appellants' convictions and death sentences for the murders of three individuals. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of the complainant, Nisar Khan, was credible despite alleged discrepancies with medical evidence and the omission of other eyewitnesses' names from the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were consistent with the safe dispensation of justice. The Court affirmed that the complainant’s testimony was spontaneous and truthful, noting that his failure to mention other witnesses was a natural consequence of his flight from the scene under duress. The Court further held that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not necessarily invalidate a witness's account, particularly when the witness is in a state of panic. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the abscondence of the accused without a plausible explanation serves as a corroborative circumstance. The judgment reinforces the principle that the credibility of a witness is not undermined by minor inconsistencies or the omission of details in an F.I.R. if the overall narrative remains consistent and natural.
Questions settled- Does the omission of names of eyewitnesses from a First Information Report necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
- Can minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence justify the rejection of a witness's account?
- Is the abscondence of an accused person a valid corroborative circumstance in a murder trial?
- Does the failure of a complainant to account for every detail of an incident during a life-threatening situation undermine their credibility?
- SAID ALI AND Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1982 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed an application for contempt of court under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against five respondents, alleging violation of a status quo order passed by the court on 21-3-1981 regarding the occupation of State land. The Supreme Court observed that cross criminal cases had already been registered at the police station concerning the exact same occurrence regarding possession, trespass, and damage. Holding that a parallel inquiry is not called for when other proceedings afford better opportunities for the determination of disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Will the court initiate contempt proceedings when cross criminal cases regarding the same factual occurrence are already pending?
- Does a parallel inquiry into questions of possession and trespass warrant the dismissal of a contempt petition?
- SAID ALI AND Others vs BRIG. IFTIKHAR BASHIR TARAR AND Other1982 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order declining to restore a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 could be dismissed in default for non-prosecution and whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, such as Order XVII Rule 3, precluded such dismissal. The Supreme Court held that while proceedings under Article 199 are of a civil nature and governed by the Civil Procedure Code 1908 to a limited extent, they are not strictly bound by rules like Order XVII Rule 3 when no pleadings or evidence are involved. The Court ruled that when a petitioner's counsel fails to appear after being forewarned and merely seeks an unjustified adjournment, the High Court is legally justified in dismissing the constitutional petition for non-prosecution and refusing its subsequent restoration. The key principle laid down is that courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction are not bound to deliver a decision on the merits in the unassisted absence of a deliberately non-attending party.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly apply to constitutional petitions?
- Is a court justified in refusing to restore a writ petition dismissed due to the unexcused absence and failure of counsel to address arguments?
- SAID AKBAR vs MESSRS NAZIM SILK MILLS1982 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
- SAHU & CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA45 TAX 109 · Orissa High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sahibzadi NASIMA BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition filed by the appellant against a policy decision regarding the verification and allotment of agricultural land left behind in an agreed area in India, for which special jamabandis had not been received in Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether the authorities lacked the competence to apply an alternative verification method on the analogy of Schedule V, whether such sub-classification was discriminatory, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Supreme Court held that the policy decision and alternative verification method adopted due to the unavailability of special jamabandis were within the competence of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, and that the petition was not barred by laches as the appellant had pursued a civil remedy and was not at fault. The Court laid down the principle that in exceptional situations where basic records such as special jamabandis are unavailable, authorities may legitimately adopt alternative, just, and established methods of verification similar to those under Schedule V, and such provisional verifications remain subject to the necessary statutory reductions and limitations.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches when the aggrieved party has previously pursued an unsuccessful civil remedy regarding the same matter?
- Can the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities adopt an alternative method of claim verification on the analogy of Schedule V when special jamabandis from agreed areas are not available?
- Does a provisional verification of property make the allotted property go out of the compensation pool under section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Whether the policy decision subjecting claims from agreed areas without special jamabandis to progressive cuts and restrictions constitutes unlawful discrimination?
- SAHIBZADI NASIMA BEGUM vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-23Read full judgment →
- SAHIBZADI NASIMA BEG UM vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-23Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada K. A. K. AFRIDI vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1982 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the termination of the petitioner's services as a Liaison Officer (Finance) by Pakistan International Airlines. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was competent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that these submissions raise questions of law of considerable public importance regarding the nature of duties of a workman and the competency of appeals under the relevant labour laws.
Questions settled- Whether an employee engaged as a Liaison Officer (Finance) qualifies as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal competent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance?
- Whether duties of a managerial or supervisory nature exclude an employee from the definition of a workman?
- SAHIB MASIH AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant Sahib Masih and altering sentences for other appellants under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the reliability of interested ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and the benefit of doubt arising from suspicious circumstances in a murder case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of the interested witnesses lacked intrinsic soundness and sufficient independent corroboration, and that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution version regarding the weapons used. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, establishing the principle that where interested witness testimony is suspicious, uncorroborated by medical evidence, and attended by doubtful identification circumstances, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does a discrepancy between the ocular account of weapons used and the medical evidence undermine the prosecution's case?
- Whether the presence of severe pre-existing enmity between parties acts as a double-edged sword regarding false implication and aggression?
- Can a conviction be maintained when the identification of the accused is rendered doubtful by darkness and the muffling of faces?
- SAGHIR HUSSAIN AND Others vs KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN, SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF CHIEF SETTLT. COMMR. ETC.)1982 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing an appeal regarding the transfer of property bearing No. E/459-A, Shahalam Gate, Lahore. The petitioners, who were tenants of the property, sought to challenge its transfer to the respondents by asserting that the property was evacuee trust property owned by the R. B. Lachman Dass Free Hospital and thus not transferable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as tenants, possessed the requisite locus standi to initiate proceedings to declare the property as evacuee trust property, particularly given their prior attempts to secure the property for themselves. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioners lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the appeal. The Court further noted that the petitioners' conduct—having previously sought the property's transfer for themselves—estopped them from later claiming it was trust property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court declining to express an opinion on the underlying merits of the property's status.
Questions settled- Do tenants of a property have the locus standi to initiate proceedings to declare that property as evacuee trust property?
- Does a party's prior attempt to obtain property transfer for themselves estop them from later challenging the transfer on the grounds that the property is evacuee trust property?
- SAFIA BIBI AND ANOTHER vs MUSHTAQUE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 706 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- SAFFAR AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 826 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI TAYAB ALI vs MESSRS HAJEE BASHIR TEXTILE MILL1982 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord-appellant against the tenant-respondent on grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized conversion of the leased plot into a warehouse and godowns instead of constructing a textile mill. The Rent Controller proceeded ex parte due to the tenant's absence and passed an eviction order. An application by the tenant to set aside the ex parte proceedings was filed after the final eviction order had already been pronounced, and was subsequently dismissed. The tenant's first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, but upon a second appeal, the High Court remanded the matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case based on an application to set aside ex parte proceedings that was filed after the Rent Controller had become functus officio. The Supreme Court held that once the final eviction order was passed, the Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order IX Rule 13, and the High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of the lower fora. The Supreme Court laid down that a Rent Controller loses jurisdiction to entertain applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings after the final judgment has been rendered, and that a tenant failing to deposit rent regularly in court cannot claim protection against default.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller retain jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside ex parte proceedings after a final order of eviction has been passed?
- Can a tenant who fails to regularly deposit rent in court claim relief against an allegation of default?
- Is the High Court justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenant default and unauthorized construction in a second appeal?
- SAFDAR ALI KHAN SYAL vs DISTRICT JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, ZILLA1982 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Election Tribunal whereby the petitioner, elected to a special interest seat as a peasant from a Zila Council, was de-seated and the election was set aside. The core legal questions involved the legality of pronouncing judgment against a party under Order X, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to appear to make a better statement, the necessity of lawful excuse and inquiry into absence, and the requirement of supporting evidence before rendering judgment. The Lahore High Court held that pronouncing judgment under Order X, rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a penal action requiring a judicial exercise of discretion based on proved material or evidence, rather than an automatic penalty for non-appearance, and that the Tribunal failed to properly inquire into the petitioner's lawful excuse for absence. The Court laid down the principle that a judgment against an absenting party must be supported by necessary material or evidence and cannot be sustained when passed in violation of principles of natural justice and procedural rules.
Questions settled- Whether a court or tribunal can pronounce judgment against a party under Order X, rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing that the absence was without lawful excuse?
- Is a better statement under Order X, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a substitute for documentary evidence?
- Whether the pronouncement of judgment against an absenting party requires the presence of necessary material or evidence on record?
- Can an election tribunal base its decision on grounds not raised in the initial election petition?
- SAFDAR ALI GHAURI AND 7 Others vs Sh. MAQBOOL ELAHI (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- SAEED AMER vs PRINCIPAL KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- SADIQ ALI SHAH vs SARDAR KHALID UMAR AND Other1982 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court dated 9-2-1982, whereby bail was granted to respondent Sardar Khalid Umar in a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the respondent was involved as an abettor in the commission of murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting post-arrest bail to the accused on medical grounds. The Supreme Court held that the grant of bail was well within the discretion of the High Court, supported by sufficient medical material demonstrating that the respondent was a heart patient whose detention would severely affect his health. The Court laid down the principle that where medical grounds are substantiated by competent medical authority indicating grave risk to the accused's health, and no legal principle governing bail has been violated, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion to grant bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted to an accused on medical grounds when he is suffering from a serious ailment such as a heart condition?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order granting bail if no principle of law governing the grant of bail has been violated?
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs LT.CoL. (Rem.) MUHAMMAD SHARIF1982 CLC 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs LT. COL. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD SHARIF1982 CLC 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 342 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-18Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI vs SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS , .1982 PLC 416 · Labour Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI vs HASHMAT ALI1982 CLC 2413 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- SABHAGO vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1318 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
- SAAD MUHAMMAD SHAHEEN AL-SOOFI AND 8 Others vs PRINCIPAL &1982 CLC 805 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SAAD MUHAMMAD SHAHEEN AL SOOFI AND 8 Others vs PRINCIPAL &1982 CLC 805 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- S.S. NAVALGI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND OTHERS45 TAX 103 · karnataka High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- S.M. ILYAS & SONS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE46 TAX 113 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against the High Court's dismissal of applications under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, which sought to compel the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding the disallowance of remuneration paid to a Director. The appellant, a private limited company, claimed the remuneration as a deductible business expense under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act. The tax authorities and the Tribunal disallowed the deduction, concluding that the payment was not a bona fide business expense but a device to reduce tax liability, noting the Director's lack of significant contribution to business operations. The core legal question was whether this disallowance constituted a question of law or a finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s determination—that the expenditure lacked commercial expediency and was not genuinely incurred for business purposes—was a finding of fact based on the evidence presented. Consequently, as no question of law arose from this factual finding, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Income Tax Department may disallow expenditures not incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.
Questions settled- Is the determination that an expenditure lacks commercial expediency a finding of fact or a question of law?
- Can the Income Tax Department disallow remuneration paid to a company director if it is found to be a device for tax avoidance rather than a bona fide business expense?
- Does the burden of proving that an expenditure was incurred bona fide for business purposes lie upon the assessee?
- S. WALIUR REHMAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY1982 PLC 892 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- S. SHAKIL ABBAS RIZVI vs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD.1982 PLC 722 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- S. M. ZAHOOR ALI ZAIDI vs Mst. KAREEMUNNISA. JILLANI1982 CLC 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- S. M. ZAHOOR ALI ZAIDI vs Mst. AAREEMUNNISA JILLANI1982 CLC 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- S. M. FAROOQ vs MESSRS SMITH KLINE AND FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD.1982 PLC 809 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-25Read full judgment →
- S. M. AKIL FIKREE vs MUHAMMAD QAMARUZ ZAMAN1982 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs on a dishonoured cheque. The defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 for leave to appear and defend, while simultaneously seeking stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that his previously instituted suit concerning the same subject-matter was pending. The primary legal issue before the Sindh High Court was whether an application under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of a summary suit can be entertained and decided before the defendant is granted leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII. The Court held that Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) C.P.C. places a mandatory statutory bar preventing the defendant from appearing or taking any step in the suit without first obtaining leave. Consequently, a defendant cannot move an interlocutory application under Section 10 C.P.C. prior to obtaining leave to defend. Consideration of the Section 10 application was deferred until the application for leave to defend was decided.
Questions settled- Can an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided in a summary suit before leave to defend is granted under Order XXXVII?
- Does the mandatory bar under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prevent a defendant from filing interlocutory applications prior to obtaining leave to appear and defend?
- Does Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 oust the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a subsequently instituted suit?
- S. J. SHAH vs S. M. ALAM1982 CLC 622 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-01Read full judgment →
- S. B. KHAN vs MEMBER II, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AND 3Other1982 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- S. ALAMDAR HUSSAIN KAZMI vs DR. SHAREEFUDDIN AHMED1982 CLC 935 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- S. AJMAL SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Constitutional petitions were filed by two government engineers challenging an order dated 18-06-1979 whereby the major penalty of reduction to a lower post was imposed on them for misconduct and inefficiency under the North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioners contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory rules because key witnesses were examined in their absence, no opportunity for cross-examination was provided, day-to-day proceedings were not held, no final show-cause notice with the inquiry report was served before recommending major penalties, and the reduction order failed to specify the operative period as required under Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in flagrant disregard of statutory procedures, natural justice, and the precedent set in PLD 1981 SC 176 regarding mandatory post-inquiry show-cause notices. Consequently, the High Court quashed the inquiry proceedings and the resulting penalty orders, allowing both constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Does the examination of witnesses in the absence of an accused civil servant and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination vitiate departmental inquiry proceedings?
- Is it mandatory under Rule 5(4) of the NWFP Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 to provide a copy of the inquiry report and issue a show-cause notice before recommending a major penalty?
- Does an order imposing a penalty of reduction to a lower post become defective if it fails to specify the duration of the reduction as required by Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules?
- Can a civil servant who is directly selected to a post be demoted to a post lower than that of their initial direct recruitment?
- S. AIJAZ ALI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 664 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-07-14Read full judgment →
- S. ABDUL GHAFFAR WASTI vs THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISES & LAND1982 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from civil revision proceedings wherein a civil servant challenged the promotion of respondents within the Central Excise and Land Customs Department. The core legal issue was whether a revised departmental examination scheme introduced in 1967 invalidated the promotion eligibility and rights previously acquired by candidates who had qualified under an earlier examination system in place from 1957 to 1966. The petitioner argued that the 1967 scheme was fundamental, lacked express reservation for past qualifiers, and rendered previous results obsolete. The Supreme Court held that the change in the examination system was neither basic nor fundamental, as passing an examination remained the prerequisite for promotion. The Court ruled that altering subjects or weightage did not efface subsisting qualifications, and the two systems could be reconciled to preserve earned rights and ensure continuity. Finding no legal error in the decisions of the department or lower courts, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a change in a departmental examination scheme for civil service promotions efface the eligibility and qualified status earned under a previous examination scheme?
- Can a revised promotion examination system obliterate vested promotion qualifications acquired under an earlier system in the absence of an express revocation clause?
- RUSTAM KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-16Read full judgment →