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.
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS LUCKY STORES &1981 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court answering a reference in the affirmative regarding the assessment of income tax for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 for two concerns, Lucky Stores and Zubair Medical Stores. The Income-tax Officer had clubbed the income of both concerns under the sole proprietor Muhammad Tufail. The Appellate Tribunal and subsequently the High Court held that the income could not be clubbed, applying the principle of res judicata based on earlier assessment findings, as no new or fresh material had become available to the income-tax authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principles of res judicata can apply to income-tax proceedings subject to certain limitations, particularly where no fresh evidence with material bearing is available to re-open the matter decided previously after proper inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the principles of res judicata apply to decisions of income-tax authorities in subsequent assessment years?
- Can income from two separate business concerns be clubbed together in the absence of fresh material or evidence?
- Is every assessment year under the Income-tax Act a distinct and unconnected unit for all purposes?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MESSRS M. BAHAR AHMAD & Sonss1981 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerned whether interest payments made by an assessee firm to minor relatives on deposited amounts, which were disallowed as 'borrowed capital' under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, could alternatively be claimed as a deductible business expenditure under the residuary Section 10(2)(xvi). The core legal question was whether the specific provision of Section 10(2)(iii) excludes the application of the general residuary provision of Section 10(2)(xvi) regarding interest payments. The Supreme Court held that while the rule of interpretation 'generalia specialibus non derogant' (things special derogate from things general) applies when provisions overlap in scope, it does not preclude the use of a general clause if the specific clause is not applicable or if the expenditure qualifies under both. The Court determined that the interest payments in question were indeed deductible as business expenditure. The key principle laid down is that the residuary clause (xvi) is not automatically excluded by the existence of specific clauses unless the subject matter and scope are identical and the specific clause is intended to be exhaustive and restrictive in that specific instance.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a specific provision in a statute automatically exclude the application of a general residuary provision?
- Can interest payments disallowed under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 be claimed as deductible business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi)?
- Under what circumstances does the rule of interpretation 'generalia specialibus non derogant' apply to statutory clauses?
- THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs Sh.1981 CLC 886 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. vs MESSRS MANGORA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES,SWAT1981 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Bank filed a civil suit for recovery in 1965, which remained pending for over a decade. In 1977, the trial court rejected the Bank's application under Order XVI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to file a list of witnesses, citing failure to comply with the seven-day filing requirement under Order XVI, Rule 1. The High Court upheld this rejection in revision. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to allow the Bank to produce witnesses due to procedural delay. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lower courts erred in shutting out the evidence. The Court established that when determining whether to allow a late list of witnesses, courts must consider the reasonableness of the explanation, potential prejudice to the opposing party, and inconvenience to the court. Where a party provides a plausible explanation for delay—such as administrative difficulties following nationalization—and the opposing party suffers no prejudice, the court should permit the examination of witnesses produced by the party.
Questions settled- What factors should a court consider when determining whether to allow a party to file a list of witnesses after the prescribed time limit?
- Does the failure to file a list of witnesses within the time prescribed under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prevent a party from examining witnesses produced by them at trial without court summons?
- Can a court shut out evidence solely due to a procedural delay in filing a witness list if no prejudice is caused to the opposite party?
- WARCHA SALT MINES vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- THE ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY vs H. C. BEVAN PITMAN AND Other1981 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning execution proceedings where funds of the Traders Bank Ltd. were attached to satisfy a decree. The Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property sought leave to appeal, arguing that the funds constituted enemy property under the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, and were protected under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned under section 153 of the Companies Act. The core legal question is whether funds attached and held under a court order prior to the enforcement of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance and rules can be classed as enemy property. The Supreme Court held that money validly attached and held under Order XXI, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the satisfaction of a decree before the relevant enemy property laws came into force does not constitute enemy property. The key principle laid down is that funds held by a public officer for the satisfaction of a court decree prior to the enactment of emergency laws regarding enemy property are not hit by such provisions and remain available to satisfy the decree.
Questions settled- Whether funds attached under Order XXI, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the enforcement of emergency laws can be classed as enemy property?
- Does money held in deposit for the benefit of the court for the satisfaction of a decree fall within the definition of enemy property?
- Can a party raise objections regarding a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act when the property in question is held not to be enemy property?
- TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs BAR AL! AND 55 OTHERS1981 PLC 656 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC 907 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
- TEOOMAL vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment of a Single Judge who, in a Constitutional Petition under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution, remanded a case to the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property for rehearing. The core legal question was whether the High Court could set aside an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property and remand the matter when the Custodian was not impleaded as a party, and whether such action could be taken suo motu. The Court held that the High Court lacks suo motu jurisdiction under Article 98, which requires an application by an aggrieved party. Furthermore, the Custodian was a necessary party; failing to implead the authority whose order is impugned renders the writ petition defective. The Court also noted the respondent's laches in challenging the order after ten years. The key principle laid down is that in writ proceedings, the authority whose order is challenged is a necessary party, and the High Court cannot grant relief against non-parties or act suo motu to set aside administrative orders without proper pleadings and parties.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution?
- Is the authority whose order is impugned a necessary party in a writ petition?
- Can a High Court set aside an administrative order in a writ petition without the issuing authority being impleaded as a party?
- Do Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to transfer property that has been declared non-evacuee?
- TAUS KHAN vs MESSRS WELLCOME PAKISTAN LTD., .1981 PLC 768 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- TASNEEM KAUSAR vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR ETC.S1981 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the order of the Lahore High Court dated 14-11-1979, which granted post-arrest bail to Respondent No. 1 on the ground of ill-health. The petitioner contended that the ground of illness was not raised in earlier bail applications and that the respondent's medical conditions could be treated within the jail hospital. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail on medical grounds based on a Medical Board's report. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had prudently ordered an examination by a Board of three eminent doctors, whose report confirmed that the respondent suffered from Diabetes Mellitus and indications of tuberculosis. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and found no ground for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercises its discretion in granting bail on medical grounds when supported by an independent Medical Board report?
- Can bail granted on medical grounds by a High Court be interfered with where no perversity or improper exercise of discretion is shown?
- TARIQ MAHMOOD vs MESSRS RICE PXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI ,1981 PLC 881 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- TANVEER HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND Another1981 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a police constable, from service. The petitioner was dismissed following allegations by a Saudi Arabian national that the petitioner, while on duty at Lahore Railway Station, threatened him and misappropriated his valuables. The core legal questions addressed were whether the failure to produce the complainant for cross-examination vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, whether the show-cause notice was invalid for being a verbatim copy of the complaint, and whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the internal police records sufficiently established the petitioner's identity and assignment on the relevant train, rendering cross-examination of the complainant unnecessary. The Court further ruled that there is no legal requirement for a charge-sheet to be worded differently from the underlying complaint and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate he had requested a personal hearing. The judgment affirms that disciplinary actions based on credible internal records and complaints are valid absent procedural illegality.
Questions settled- Is a show-cause notice invalid if it is a verbatim copy of the complaint?
- Does the failure to produce a complainant for cross-examination automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Is a personal hearing a mandatory requirement in disciplinary proceedings where the petitioner did not request one?
- TALIB HUSSAIN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his first cousin. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for murder could be sustained primarily on the basis of statements made by eye-witnesses before the Committing Magistrate that were transferred to the Sessions file under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when those same witnesses turned hostile at trial, alongside corroborative circumstantial and ballistic evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that statements of witnesses who resile at trial can validly be relied upon in preference to their trial testimony if corroborated. The Court laid down that previous statements transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide a legally sound basis for conviction when supported by reliable corroborative evidence such as independent recoveries, ballistic matching, and medical reports, even if hostility at trial stems from a family compromise.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of statements made before the Committing Magistrate when the eye-witnesses resile and turn hostile at the trial?
- Whether the earlier statement of a witness transferred to the Sessions file under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be preferred over their trial testimony?
- Can the testimony of police officers regarding recoveries be relied upon independently to corroborate ocular and circumstantial evidence when eye-witnesses used for recovery turn hostile?
- Are the recovery of empty cartridges matching a recovered licensed gun and the presence of a dead body in the accused's house sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction?
- TALIB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-02Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS, .(1981 PLC (C. S.) 741 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- TAIYAB A. KAPADIA vs Agha ZIAUDDIN BARNI1981 CLC 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated by a deceased landlord against a tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent for four months and bona fide personal requirement for running a film production business. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application on both grounds, and the Third Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissed the tenant's first appeal, affirming the lower court's findings. Before the High Court, the tenant argued that the landlord's death altered the personal requirement claim and that the lower courts erred in disregarding account books of a partnership firm showing alleged cash rent payments. The High Court held that the personal requirement of a deceased landlord for a business requiring specialized skill cannot be automatically inherited or substituted by his legal heirs (a widow and married daughters). However, on the question of default, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings, holding that account books of a partnership firm to which the landlord was a stranger could not establish rent payment, especially when no partnership was pleaded in the written statement. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord's personal bona fide requirement for a specialized business be substituted by his legal heirs after his death?
- Can a tenant rely on account books of an unpleaded partnership firm to prove payment of rent to a landlord who is a stranger to that firm?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of rent default can be interfered with in second appeal when not perverse or contrary to record?
- T. R. ARTHUR vs ALEX ROBERT DAVID1981 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- Syed ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN vs S. P., KOHAT AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 803 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- Syed TUFAIL AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1981 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition relating to the final disposal of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner claimed to be the sister's son of a deceased property owner, alleging that his land settlement claim was fraudulently diverted and that respondents were unlawfully granted inheritance mutations. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings regarding the heirship and relationship of the respondents to the deceased could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised pertained entirely to the appreciation of evidence and factual controversies settled by concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, warranting no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower settlement authorities be interfered with in a constitutional petition?
- Whether questions relating to the appreciation of evidence can form the basis for interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does an allegation of fraud regarding the transfer of a land claim warrant interference when based on disputed questions of fact?
- Syed SHAMSUL QAMAR WARSI vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAMSUL QAMAR WARS! vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 5 OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 455 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-01-04Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAHENSHAH HUSSAIN RIZVI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1981 PLC (C. S.) 538 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- SYED SHAH vs POLITICAL AGENT, BAJAUR AGENCY AND 3 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the order of the Political Agent, Bajaur, cancelling the petitioner's domicile certificate and withdrawing his nomination for admission to Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad against reserved tribal seats. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction in relation to a Federally Administered Tribal Area under Article 247(7) of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner's suppression of material facts and reliance on a previously forged domicile certificate disentitled him to equitable relief. In a reference resulting from a split verdict between Muhammad Sardar Khan, J. and Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J., the Acting Chief Justice agreed with the view that the impugned order having been passed in a tribal area by an authority outside the territorial and constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, no writ could be issued. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the majority.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in relation to a Federally Administered Tribal Area under Article 247(7)?
- Does the suppression of material facts and previous fraudulent conduct disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary equitable relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether an order passed by a Political Agent within a Tribal Area is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court merely because its effect extends to an institution located within settled areas?
- Syed SARWAR HUSSAIN vs THE PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 839 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-29Read full judgment →
- Syed SARDAR SHAH vs MUHAMMAD HABIB AND Others1981 P Cr. L J 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
- Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of personal need for himself and his son. The Rent Controller decided the matter in favor of the landlord. On appeal, the District Judge recast the issues to include personal need of the son and contractual grounds, and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller. The landlord challenged this remand order before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
The High Court examined whether a Rent Controller is bound by strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding issue framing, and whether an order recasting issues without supporting material on record is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that a Rent Controller acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not strictly bound by C.P.C. procedure to frame issues. It held that orders passed without supporting evidence or material on record are without lawful authority, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where such remedy causes unnecessary delay and expense.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller bound by the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the framing of issues?
- Can an appellate authority recast issues and remand a case when there is no supporting material or evidence on record for such issues?
- Does an order passed without any supporting evidence on record constitute an order passed without lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the availability of an alternative remand proceeding bar a constitutional petition if it causes unnecessary expense and delay?
- Syed REAZ HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES &1981 PLC (C. S.) 705 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed RAHIM SHAH vs SAEED AKHTAR ETC.S1981 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous application sought contempt proceedings against Revenue Department officials in Mansehra District for allegedly failing to apply the law declared by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment regarding the allocation of compensation for trees on village Shamilat. The core legal question was whether contempt proceedings are competent against administrative authorities for failing to follow a declaration of law when alternative civil remedies are being pursued and the subject matter of compensation was not strictly covered by the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court held that the application was misconceived because the petitioners had already filed a civil suit for the proper application of the law, and alternative legal remedies were available against any erroneous actions of the revenue authorities. The Court laid down the principle that contempt action does not lie for an alleged failure by administrative officials to apply a declared legal position where the aggrieved party has access to ordinary legal remedies such as a civil suit.
Questions settled- Can contempt proceedings be initiated against revenue officials for failing to apply a declaration of law made by the Supreme Court?
- Does a party have the right to seek contempt of court when ordinary civil remedies for the same grievance are already being pursued?
- Whether contempt of court arises when administrative authorities misinterpret or depart from a judicial precedent.
- Syed QAMAR MOINI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 31981 CLC 1231 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed NAZIM ALI ETC, Syed MUSTAFA ALI, ETC vs Syed MUSTAFA ALI ETC.S Syed1981 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over an evacuee property in Lahore, which was divided by Settlement Authorities into eastern and western portions. The core legal question involves the interpretation of transfer and demarcation orders regarding the exclusive versus common use of the property's sole staircase, and whether a writ petition should be granted to enforce an unjust claim that creates a deadlock for access. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. The Court held that Settlement authorities could not transfer property entitlements in demarcation proceedings beyond what was granted in the original transfer order, and that division into two houses implied shared access to the only staircase. Furthermore, invoking the principle established in Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Court ruled that discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to foster injustice or deprive another party of access to their property.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities transfer property entitlements in demarcation proceedings that were not granted in the original transfer order?
- Whether a writ petition can be invoked to enforce a claim that results in an injustice or creates a deadlock for access to property?
- Does the division of an evacuee property into two houses imply the common use of the sole existing staircase?
- Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 724 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-10-18Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZAR ALI vs Syed IBNE ALI AND Other.1981 SC MR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition concerning the transfer of property under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner, who had been granted the property by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, contested the subsequent transfer of the same property to the respondent, whose appeal against the initial transfer was filed beyond the period of limitation. The core legal questions were whether the authorities erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether the findings regarding actual possession were sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the condonation of delay was a matter of discretion for the competent forum, which could not be interfered with unless exercised illegally, capriciously, or arbitrarily. Additionally, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the settlement authorities and the High Court regarding the respondent's actual possession of the property since 1958. The judgment reaffirms that appellate courts will not disturb discretionary decisions on limitation or factual findings of possession supported by evidence.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with the discretion of a lower forum regarding the condonation of delay?
- Is a finding of fact regarding possession by settlement authorities subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the filing of an appeal beyond the limitation period automatically invalidate the transfer of property if the delay is condoned?
- Syed NASIR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD AND Other1981 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges the dismissal of the appellant civil servant's service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal's decision was vitiated due to non-compliance with rule 24 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 regarding the Chairman's opinion, whether the Director of Audit had the requisite authority under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to take disciplinary action against a Grade 16 officer, whether the show-cause notice was defective for failing to specify a tentative penalty, and whether a right of personal hearing existed under the applicable Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal was competent to function in benches pursuant to section 3-A added by Ordinance No. X of 1978, that the Director of Audit possessed the necessary authority as the designated Authorised Officer under the relevant government delegation, that failure to state a specific penalty in the initial notice does not prejudice the proceedings, and that the applicable appeal rules do not imply a right to a personal hearing. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the functioning of the Service Tribunal in benches under section 3-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 overrides the procedural requirement of consulting the Chairman under rule 24 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974?
- Does the Director of Audit have the authority to take disciplinary action against a Grade 16 officer under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 based on the applicable government delegation of powers?
- Is a show-cause notice vitiated if it fails to specify a tentative penalty and instead refers generally to the rule prescribing various penalties?
- Do the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 implicitly exclude the right to a personal hearing in departmental appeals?
- Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH BOKHARI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER Syed1981 PLD Supreme Court 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal case involves cross-appeals arising from the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an Additional Sessions Judge's order issuing bailable warrants of arrest against a Deputy Superintendent of Police and others for the alleged murder of one Rana Muhammad Sadiq. The core legal question concerned the appropriate stage at which a trial court should determine the necessity of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the question of sanction need not be decided solely on the recitals of the complaint at the very outset, nor should proceedings be stifled prematurely; rather, the court should allow the parties to lead evidence and determine at any appropriate stage whether a reasonable connection exists between the act done and the discharge of official duty, suspending proceedings to enable the procurement of sanction if required. The appeals were accordingly dismissed subject to these observations.
Questions settled- At what stage of the proceedings must the question of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be decided?
- Can the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be determined solely by reference to the statements made in the petition of complaint?
- What procedure should a trial court adopt if it appears during the course of proceedings that the accused was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties?
- Are the findings of a judicial inquiry conducted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relevant to assessing the necessity of sanction for prosecution?
- SYED MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB EDUCATION1981 PLC (C. S.) 802 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SYED MUHAMMAD vs P. W. D. THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OP SIND, COMMUNICATIONS & WORKS DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 487 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-01-04Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SAQLAIN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 651 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-07-06Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ISHAQ SHAH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which restored an ejectment order against the petitioner-tenant in favor of the respondent-landlord. The core legal question concerned the bona fide personal requirement of the rented shop by the landlord for himself and his sons. The Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, finding the personal need established, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. On second appeal, the High Court held that the appellate court's findings were based on ignored or misread evidence, thereby restoring the ejectment order. The Supreme Court held that the landlord successfully established bona fide personal need through sufficient evidence showing that he and his sons were engaged in improvised means of livelihood and lacked a shop of their own. The Court affirmed that findings of fact based on proper evaluation of evidence by the Rent Controller and the High Court do not warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of a tenant for the personal use of both himself and his sons?
- Is a landlord required to produce every son in court and prove his specific qualifications to establish bona fide personal need for a commercial shop?
- Whether findings of fact regarding personal need concurrently recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court are open to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs ABDUL HAMID AND 5 Other1981 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the procedural conflict between a police-challan case and a private complaint case arising from the same criminal occurrence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly ordered a joint trial of both cases, or whether the procedure established in Noor Elahi v. The State—requiring the complaint case to be heard first—should prevail. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to set aside the joint trial order. The Court held that the procedure laid down in Noor Elahi v. The State remains the governing principle. Where a private complaint and a police challan case arise from the same incident but involve different sets of accused or material discrepancies in allegations, the private complaint case must be tried first. This ensures the complainant is not prejudiced, allows for the examination of witnesses, and permits the Public Prosecutor to evaluate the prosecution's position after the initial evidence is thrashed out. This approach avoids procedural handicaps and serves the interests of justice by ensuring a comprehensive and fair trial process for all parties involved.
Questions settled- When a private complaint and a police challan case arise from the same criminal occurrence, which case should be tried first?
- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1976 invalidate the procedural guidelines established in Noor Elahi v. The State regarding the trial of cross-cases?
- Is a joint trial of a private complaint case and a police challan case permissible when the accused parties are not identical?
- Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHOHRAT BOKHARI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Lahore 742 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs MESSRS SPENCER & Co. (PAL) LTD., KARACHI1981 PLC 335 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs SUB-MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, FAISALABAD1981 PLC (C. S.) 841 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
- Syed MIR MUHAMMAD vs N.W.F.P.GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1981 PLD Supreme Court 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal upholding the appellant's removal from service following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Inquiry Officer's appointment, alleged bias of the Inquiry Officer, the vagueness of charges, and the necessity of supplying the inquiry report to the accused. The Court held that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer by the Chief Justice in consultation with other judges was valid, and the Inquiry Officer was not biased by participating in the preliminary decision to hold an inquiry. Regarding the vagueness of charges, the Court found no material prejudice caused to the appellant. However, the Court held that in formal disciplinary inquiries, it is an implicit requirement of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the principles of natural justice that the accused must be furnished with a copy of the inquiry report to offer an explanation regarding adverse findings before a final decision is reached. Consequently, the failure to supply the report vitiated the disciplinary action, and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Does the participation of an Inquiry Officer in the administrative meeting that decided to hold an inquiry against a government servant constitute legal bias?
- Is the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an accused government servant a violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Can disciplinary proceedings be vitiated if the charges framed against a government servant are vague?
- Does the appointment of an Inquiry Officer by the Chief Justice in consultation with other judges violate the requirement that the authorised officer must appoint the officer?
- Syed MASOOD AKHTAR vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI ,1981 PLC 723 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHIR SHAH vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE, PESHAWAR1981 PLC (C. S.) 806 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- Syed LATIF HUSSAIN SHAH, ADVOCATE vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, under Section 33-A(1)(m) of the Police (Amendment) Act, 1956, which restricted the entry of private buses into the city. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked legal justification, as it exempted government transport and long vehicles while causing public inconvenience. The core legal question was whether the District Magistrate’s exercise of discretion under the Act was reasonable, fair, and based on valid public safety and convenience grounds. The Court held that the statutory requirement of 'public safety and convenience' must be construed conjunctively, necessitating both elements to be satisfied. Finding the order discriminatory against private transporters without rational justification and noting the lack of consultation with the Regional Transport Authority, the Court ruled the order was arbitrary and lacked lawful authority. The judgment establishes that executive discretion, even when conferred for public purposes, must be exercised reasonably, equitably, and without discriminatory application, and that the High Court retains jurisdiction to correct improper exercises of such discretion.
Questions settled- Must the requirements of 'public safety' and 'convenience' be satisfied conjunctively for an order under Section 33-A of the Police (Amendment) Act, 1956?
- Can an executive order that discriminates between private and government transport be sustained on the grounds of public safety?
- Is the discretion vested in a District Magistrate to regulate traffic absolute and beyond judicial review?
- Syed KHADIM ALI SHAH vs S. M. ZIA AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous appeal involves applications under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, seeking the rejection of a plaint and dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of a plot. The core legal question was whether a dispute concerning the threatened forcible dispossession of a member in possession of a plot by another member touches the business of a co-operative society so as to oust the jurisdiction of civil courts under sections 54 and 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The court held that a dispute regarding illegal or forcible dispossession does not touch the business of the society, as neither the Act nor the society's bye-laws confer powers on the society or the Registrar to resolve disputes of threatened forcible ejectment or to grant permanent injunctions against dispossession. Such matters fall within the domain of ordinary civil courts. Consequently, the applications for rejection of the plaint were dismissed, establishing the principle that civil court jurisdiction is not barred for suits seeking protection against forcible dispossession by other members of a co-operative society.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding threatened forcible dispossession of a member from a plot by another member constitute a dispute touching the business of a co-operative society under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, in a suit for permanent injunction against illegal dispossession?
- Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the power to resolve disputes relating to threatened illegal dispossession between members?
- Can interlocutory orders under Rule 32-A of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927, be passed in respect of a dispute that does not fall under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Syed ISHTIAQ ALI, ADVOCATE vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 12 OTHERS1981 CLC 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
- Syed HASSAN ALI vs MESSRS KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1981 PLC 448 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE AND 6 OTHERS----1981 P Cr. L J 561 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ABBAS vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF1981 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the status of agricultural land dedicated by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the dedicated land constituted a private Waqf under the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913, thereby exempting it from the control of the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dedication was absolute and irrevocable. The Court established that because the Waqf deed did not reserve any income for the maintenance or support of the donor’s family, children, or descendants, it did not fall under the provisions of the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913. Consequently, the property was subject to the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner could not introduce a new, inconsistent plea regarding the validity of the Waqf under Shia law after the proceedings had commenced.
Questions settled- Does a Waqf deed that reserves no income for the donor's family or descendants qualify as a private Waqf under the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913?
- Can a party introduce an inconsistent plea to challenge the validity of a Waqf after the initial proceedings have commenced?
- Does the absolute dedication of property as Waqf divest the donor of ownership and control?
- Syed FAZLUR REHMAN vs INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1523 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed FARZAN RIZVI vs KHALILUR REHMAN1981 CLC 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance arises from concurrent orders of eviction passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from commercial premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement to establish a Katha manufacturing business. The High Court remanded the matter for additional evidence regarding whether the landlord had vacated other buildings without sufficient cause. Upon receiving the finding in the affirmative against the landlord, the High Court evaluated the bona fides of the claim. The Court held that a landlord's mere desire cannot be equated with a requirement in good faith, and that the landlord failed to prove the reasonable suitability of the premises, lacked necessary municipal licenses for a hazardous manufacturing trade, and had voluntarily parted with alternative commercial premises for profit. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction orders, establishing principles regarding the strict proof required to substantiate a landlord's bona fide personal requirement under rent laws.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's mere desire for commercial premises can be equated with a requirement in good faith under rent restriction laws?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding space requirements and municipal licenses for a hazardous trade negate the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement claim?
- What is the legal effect under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of a landlord parting with possession of alternative commercial premises without sufficient cause?
- Can an advance deposit held by the landlord covering accruing rents be construed as creating a fixed tenancy period that bars an eviction application?
- Syed BUNYAD ALI SHAH AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. BIBI KHAIRUNNISA AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 121 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- Syed AZAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN AND ANOTHERS1981 CLC 788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
- Syed ASHRAF ALI vs ALI MOHOMED KHAN1981 CLC 675 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- Syed ASADUR REHMAN BOKHARI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Another1981 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
- Syed ARIF SULTAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 822 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI RAZA AND 15 OTHERS vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1080 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for bail filed by Syed Ali Raza and 15 others against the State, registered under sections 302, 307, 325, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lodhran, District Multan. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to post-arrest bail in view of land disputes, mutual injuries sustained during the fight, and subsequent affidavits filed by injured eye-witnesses absolving the petitioners. The Lahore High Court held that since the injured eye-witnesses filed sworn affidavits stating that the petitioners were not the assailants and that a different group of persons was involved, the petitioners are entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that where injured eye-witnesses resile from their initial stance through affidavits presenting a different version of the occurrence, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail without delving deep into the merits of the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when injured eye-witnesses file affidavits stating that the accused persons were not the assailants?
- Does a dispute regarding land and a fight involving injuries on both sides warrant further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- What is the effect of statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 versus subsequent affidavits by eye-witnesses at the bail stage?
- Syed ALI ASGHAR ZAIDI vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND, HYDERABAD AND 21981 CLC 1356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SYED ALAM vs RABIA GUL1981 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner sought pre-emption of land based on contiguous ownership and participation in amenities, which the trial court dismissed upon finding the respondent also had a contiguous land and was a co-sharer in an irrigating Lakhti. The District Judge allowed the petitioner's appeal, but the High Court subsequently accepted the respondent's revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a very small fractional share in an unpartitioned irrigating property is sufficient to confer the status of a co-owner for pre-emption purposes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a co-owner of unpartitioned property is an owner in every inch of the estate regardless of the small fraction of their share, and distinguished prior case law regarding public thoroughfares and common walls. The key principle laid down is that ownership rights in unpartitioned property extend to every part thereof, establishing superior pre-emptive right by virtue of co-ownership.
Questions settled- Whether a co-owner of unpartitioned property is considered an owner in every inch of the estate regardless of the size of their fractional share?
- Does ownership of a minute share in an unpartitioned irrigating Lakhti confer a superior right of pre-emption?
- Can a person claim a superior pre-emptive right based solely on being a co-sharer in a public thoroughfare?
- Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs WALI BAHADUR AND 3 Others1981 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the landlords' claim that they required the rented premises in "good faith" for their own occupation was genuine, given the tenant's allegations of mala fides and prior demands for increased rent. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate order was sound. The court affirmed that a landlord's statement on oath, if consistent with the pleadings and not shaken during cross-examination, is generally sufficient to establish bona fides. The court further held that a prior demand for enhanced rent does not automatically invalidate an ejectment application if the personal requirement is independently established. The judgment clarified that the Ordinance provides specific statutory safeguards against dishonest evictions, and the burden shifts to the tenant to prove mala fides once the landlord has asserted the personal need. Consequently, the court found no merit in the challenge, confirming the tenant must vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's prior demand for increased rent automatically invalidate an application for ejectment based on personal requirement?
- Is a landlord's statement on oath sufficient to establish the 'good faith' requirement for personal use of rented premises?
- What is the effect of a landlord's failure to examine a witness on the presumption of evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872?
- Under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, what safeguards exist to prevent a landlord from obtaining possession of a rented building on false grounds of personal use?
- Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD TAHIR ALAM AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- Syed AKBAR ALI PUKHARI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1981 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court of Pakistan's order dated 28-10-1980, which had dismissed his civil appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his constitutional petition. The petitioner raised several grounds, including the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem due to the non-provision of a detailed dismissal order, procedural violations by the Inquiry Officer in recording witness statements, and the failure to supply the inquiry report and serve a second show-cause notice. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to seek a re-hearing of the arguments already addressed and decided in the civil appeal, without satisfying the jurisdictional requirements necessary for maintaining a review petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, reaffirming that a review petition cannot be utilized as a platform for re-arguing a case to obtain a different decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a party seek a review of a judgment solely to re-argue the merits of the case and obtain a different decision?
- What jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied to maintain a review petition before the Supreme Court?
- Syed AKBAR ALI BOKHARI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1981 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant, an Assistant Treasurer at the State Bank of Pakistan, for gross misconduct involving the alteration of Prize Bond records and abstraction of prize money. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, conducted under the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, violated the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements by failing to provide a formal trial, cross-examination of witnesses, a copy of the inquiry report, or a second show-cause notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the disciplinary inquiry was fair and complied with the relevant Staff Regulations. The Court affirmed that while administrative authorities must act in good faith and provide a reasonable opportunity for the accused to explain their position and contradict prejudicial statements, they are not strictly bound to conduct a formal judicial trial, examine witnesses in the presence of the accused, or permit cross-examination, provided the essential requirements of fairness are met. The Court further clarified that statutory requirements applicable to industrial workmen under specific labor laws cannot be transposed onto internal bank regulations.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of 'reasonable opportunity' in disciplinary proceedings necessitate a formal trial with the right to cross-examine witnesses?
- Can statutory requirements applicable to industrial workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 be applied to employees governed by specific internal bank regulations?
- Is a Constitutional Petition maintainable against the State Bank of Pakistan regarding the enforcement of service terms?
- Are administrative authorities required to provide a second show-cause notice indicating proposed punishment in the absence of a specific statutory provision requiring it?
- Syed AHMAD KAMAL vs Khan MAUJ DIN KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court remanding a property dispute to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh decision. The dispute centers around the transfer and divisibility of a residential unit in Lahore between two rival claimants who had been in occupation since 1947-1948. In the earlier rounds of litigation, the High Court had determined that the petitioner's lawful possession was restricted to the upper story, a finding that remained final and binding, rendering subsequent contrary findings by the Settlement Commissioner without lawful authority. Furthermore, the petitioner actively participated in the remand proceedings without protest and submitted written arguments, thereby rendering the petition infructuous by conduct. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order suffered from no legal or factual infirmity and that participation in remand proceedings without protest disentitles a party from challenging the remand. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a party who participates in remand proceedings without protest can subsequently challenge the remand order in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does a finding of fact regarding the extent of possession in an earlier round of litigation remain binding in subsequent proceedings?
- Can the High Court remand a case to the Settlement Authorities when the lower settlement tribunals ignored binding factual determinations regarding possession?
- Syed ABUL HASSAN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH ETC vs JALAL DIN ETC.1981 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- SWATI QAUM THROUGH BACHA GUL AND Others vs PAINDA KHEL QAUM AND Other1981 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in limine, which challenged a revisional order passed by a Deputy Secretary to the Government of NWFP regarding customary dues in Dir District. The core legal questions involved whether the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was barred by time and whether the High Court had writ jurisdiction over the Tribal Areas of Dir, Chitral, and Swat. The Supreme Court held that the revisional order was erroneous because the limitation period for filing the appeal only commenced from the date the formal order was signed and communicated to the parties, and further held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court stood validly extended by President's Order XXVII of 1973 prior to the disposal of the review petition. The appeal was accepted and the case remitted to the revisional authority for decision on merits, laying down that a competent authority cannot ignore material evidence regarding limitation when exercising revisional powers.
Questions settled- Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal commences from the date of the oral announcement or the date the formal order is signed and communicated?
- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction in relation to the Tribal Areas of Dir, Swat and Chitral following the promulgation of President's Order XXVII of 1973?
- Is a revisional decision liable to be quashed if it is arrived at in complete disregard of the material available on record regarding limitation?
- SUPERINTENDENT, SIND GOVERNMENT PRESS AND ANOTHER vs FARHAT ALL1981 PLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Custodian, Evacuee Property. The petitioners, who were occupants of property treated as evacuee property, sought to challenge a redemption order granted in favor of the respondent, which had effectively removed the property from the compensation pool. The petitioners had previously utilized this same redemption order in 1969 to successfully challenge their ejectment proceedings, arguing that the property was no longer evacuee property. Years later, they sought to challenge the legality of that same redemption order. The Supreme Court declined to examine the competency of the appeal against the delegatee of the Custodian. Instead, the Court held that the petitioners were barred from relief due to their own conduct. Having relied upon and benefited from the redemption order to protect their possession in 1969, they could not subsequently invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the same order as illegal. The petition was dismissed on this ground of conduct alone.
Questions settled- Can a party who has relied upon and benefited from an administrative order subsequently challenge that same order in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the conduct of a petitioner in prior proceedings affect the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction by the High Court?
- SULTAN MAHMOOD AND Another vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-06Read full judgment →
- SULTAN ANMAD, ETC. vs The STATE1981 SCMR 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for bail filed by three accused persons facing trial for murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail based on the principle of consistency, given that co-accused facing similar charges under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code had already been granted bail by the High Court. The petitioners argued that their case was analogous to that of the co-accused, particularly noting that the fatal injury was attributed to a different individual, Altaf, who had not sought bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erroneously dismissed the petitioners' bail application by misconstruing the circumstances under which the co-accused were granted bail. The Court held that the previous order granting bail to co-accused, which highlighted the existence of enmity and the specific attribution of the fatal shot to another person, was highly relevant. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted bail to the petitioners, and established the principle that consistency in bail adjudication is essential when co-accused share similar legal standing and evidentiary circumstances.
Questions settled- Is the principle of consistency applicable when granting bail to co-accused facing similar charges under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the fact that a fatal injury is attributed to a specific co-accused provide grounds for granting bail to other co-accused charged with vicarious liability?
- Can a High Court judge dismiss a bail application based on a factual misapprehension regarding the basis upon which bail was previously granted to co-accused?
- Sultan Ahmad vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1981 CLC 270 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- SULLEMAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 434 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the conviction of the applicant under Section 43(3) of the Abkari Act, 1878, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the trial court's reasoning, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the admissibility of an Excise Officer's certificate regarding the nature of the contraband, and compliance with search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the trial court failed to provide adequate reasons for conviction, erroneously shifting the burden of proof to the accused. Furthermore, the Appellate Court failed to consider additional evidence admitted under Section 428, Cr. P. C., regarding the status of prosecution witnesses as 'stock witnesses.' The Court also ruled that a certificate from an Excise Officer is insufficient to prove the nature of contraband, which requires expert testimony under the Evidence Act, 1872. Additionally, the search violated procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the recovery witness was not from the locality. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the applicant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is a certificate issued by an Excise Officer sufficient to prove the nature of recovered contraband, or is expert testimony required?
- Does the failure of a trial court to provide detailed reasons for a conviction constitute a legal infirmity?
- Can a search conducted in violation of the locality witness requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be sustained?
- Is the burden of proof on the accused to prove innocence, or does it remain with the prosecution throughout the trial?
- SULEMAN GABA, SENIOR EXECUTIVE, USMAN TEXTILEMILLS LTD. vs NASEEB ZADA1981 PLC 934 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN AND Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a jail petition arising from the convictions and death sentences of four appellants for the murder of four persons who were on their way to a court appearance in a connected murder case. The core legal question involves evaluating the sufficiency and credibility of ocular evidence and whether necessary corroboration exists for each convicted appellant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the convictions and death sentences of appellants Suleman, Abdul Karim, and Shah Nawaz were well-founded based on reliable eyewitness testimony, motive, and corroborative recoveries including ballistic evidence and blood-stained weapons, while appellant Pir Bakhsh alias Piru was given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted due to established enmity and a lack of corroborative evidence. The key principle laid down is that in capital cases involving interested witnesses and minor discrepancies, convictions can be sustained if corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence, such as motive, weapon recoveries, and ballistic matching, but must be set aside where corroboration is entirely absent and previous enmity exists.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony regarding specific firearms are sufficient to discard ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Does the recovery of weapons and ballistic matching constitute sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellant be acquitted when there is a background of enmity and a complete lack of incriminating corroborative evidence linking him to the crime?
- SULEMAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND 11 OTHERS vs ROCHOMAL AND 191981 CLC 1219 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sufi.Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND Other1981 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the termination of his ad hoc appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petition in view of the availability of an alternate remedy before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's ad hoc appointment had expired and not been extended, and that the Punjab Service Tribunal provided a more adequate alternate remedy. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, establishing that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when an adequate alternate remedy through a service tribunal is available.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when an alternate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal?
- Does an ad hoc appointment automatically expire upon the lapse of its stipulated term if not extended?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal considered a more adequate remedy in service matters than a writ petition?
- SUBEDAR (RTD.) ABDUL REHMAN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a pre-arrest bail application summarily due to the petitioners' non-appearance on the date of hearing. The core legal question is whether a court can dismiss a bail application summarily solely on account of the accused's non-appearance without deciding it on merits, and whether personal attendance is mandatory upon the confirmation or otherwise of pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that once a bail application has been admitted to regular hearing, it must be decided on merits even in the absence of the petitioners, and personal attendance at the confirmation stage is not mandatory unless specifically insisted upon or directed by the court. The court laid down the principle that the non-appearance of an accused on a date of hearing does not empower the court to dismiss a bail application summarily; at most, bail bonds may be forfeited or appearance insisted upon for a subsequent date, but the application itself must be adjudicated on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether a bail application can be rejected summarily solely on account of the non-appearance of the accused?
- Is it obligatory for a person to be present in court on the date of confirmation or otherwise of their pre-arrest bail?
- What is the legal course available to a court when an accused fails to appear on a date of hearing during pre-arrest bail proceedings?
- SUB (RETD.) MUHAMMAD KARIM AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS1981 CLC 71 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-08-02Read full judgment →
- STATE vs SHAMIM AHMAD AND 12 OTHERS---1981 P Cr. L J 1214 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUKHTAR AHMAD1981 P Cr. L J 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 5 Others1981 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 3 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MR. YAHYA BAKHTIAR Accused1981 PLD Peshawar 161 · Special Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MANSAB KHAN1981 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- STATE vs LOIS KOWACH1981 P Cr. L J 102 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ISHAQUE1981 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
- STATE vs HADI BAKHSH1981 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the competency of a State appeal against an acquittal on a murder charge after the accused's conviction for a lesser offence had already been upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the State could challenge the acquittal on the graver charge once the conviction for the lesser offence had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the State's appeal was incompetent. The Court reasoned that once an appellate court has adjudicated upon an appeal against a conviction, the judgment becomes final, and the principle of res judicata, alongside the prohibition against double jeopardy, precludes the State from reopening the matter to seek a conviction on a graver charge arising from the same facts. The Court emphasized that the State should have pursued its appeal against the acquittal simultaneously with the accused's appeal. The key principle laid down is that the finality of criminal judgments prevents the State from challenging an acquittal on a graver charge after a conviction for a lesser offence arising from the same transaction has been confirmed on appeal.
Questions settled- Can the State appeal an acquittal on a murder charge after the accused's conviction for a lesser offence has been upheld by the High Court?
- Does the principle of finality of judgments preclude the State from reopening a case after an appellate court has confirmed a conviction for a lesser offence?
- Is a conviction for a lesser offence a bar to a subsequent prosecution or appeal for a graver offence arising from the same facts?
- STATE vs BASHAM AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 321 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- STATE vs BADAL AND 8 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 658 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, N: W. F. P. PESHAWAR vs AMIR NAZAR1981 PLD Supreme Court 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a decision of the High Court acquitting three accused respondents who had been convicted by the trial court under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302, for a murderous attack resulting in six deaths and the burning of a house. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in discrediting the testimonies of eye-witnesses, including a injured minor child and a mother who survived by hiding in a crop field, on grounds of minor omissions and non-appraisement of evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the eye-witness evidence, night-time illumination caused by the house fire, and corroborative physical facts from the spot. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misappreciated the evidence and drew ill-conceived inferences regarding the eye-witnesses' presence and conduct. Reaffirming accepted principles of evidence appraisement, the Court ruled that minor omissions or child witness vulnerabilities do not automatically invalidate consistent identification of assailants when supported by ambient light and surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be rejected solely because she hid during a violent attack and failed to immediately report all details to the police?
- Whether the testimony of a minor injured child witness can be relied upon when corroborated by physical evidence and surrounding circumstances?
- Can identification of assailants by eye-witnesses be established where the crime scene is illuminated by a burning house?
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs SAIFUDDIN1981 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal raised the question of whether an appeal is competent under section 23-A(6) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against an order discharging an accused person. The respondent was tried by a Tribunal under section 23-A of the Act and was discharged under section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the prosecution evidence was recorded. The High Court dismissed the State Bank of Pakistan's appeal, holding that no appeal lies against an order of discharge. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of the term 'judgment' as used in section 23-A(6) of the Act, comparing it with its statutory meaning under the Code of Criminal Procedure and general legal definitions of finality. The Court held that 'judgment' under section 23-A refers exclusively to an order of conviction or acquittal, mirroring the Criminal Procedure Code, and does not encompass an order of discharge. Furthermore, an order of discharge lacks absolute legal finality because fresh proceedings can legally be initiated under certain circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that no appeal lies from an order of discharge under the Act.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an order of discharge of an accused is competent under section 23-A(6) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act?
- Does the word 'judgment' in section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act include an order of discharge made under section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is an order of discharge under section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a final and conclusive adjudication between the parties?
- STATE AND Other vs MUHAMMAD ALI CHAUDHRI AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court which quashed criminal proceedings against the respondents under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the prosecution under the Drugs Act 1940 was not validly instituted by the Drug Inspector as required by Section 32 of the said Act. The core legal question was whether the complaint and challan filed in the trial court constituted a proper institution of the prosecution by the Drug Inspector under the Drugs Act 1940. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter for trial. The Court held that the record clearly demonstrated that the Drug Inspector had formally and factually instituted the complaint with full application of an independent mind, rendering the High Court's contrary assumption legally unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that where a complaint is authored, titled, addressed, and submitted by a statutory authority like a Drug Inspector detailing the offences and provisions invoked, it satisfies the statutory institution requirement, and a countersignature or accompanying police challan file does not negate the independent application of mind.
Questions settled- Whether a prosecution under the Drugs Act 1940 is validly instituted when filed by a Drug Inspector?
- Does the presence of a police challan file alongside a formal complaint by a Drug Inspector vitiate the institution of proceedings?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the assumption that a complaint was not instituted by the competent authority?
- Does a countersignature by a statutory officer on a challan report negate the independent application of mind?