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.
- IKRAM ELAHI vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who had purchased evacuee agricultural land from a third party during the pendency of litigation concerning that land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser pendente lite, acquired a vested right in the land despite the original transfer to his vendor being declared void ab initio for want of notice to the original allottee, respondent No. 2. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having purchased the property during the pendency of earlier writ proceedings, was bound by the principle of lis pendens. The Court affirmed that the original cancellation of the allotment to respondent No. 2 was void ab initio for lack of notice, meaning the respondent’s rights as a temporary allottee remained intact throughout the litigation. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner could not claim independent rights or relief, as he had effectively purchased litigation and was subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the principle of lis pendens bind a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation regarding that property?
- Can a purchaser of land, whose vendor's title is derived from an order declared void ab initio, claim a vested right in the property?
- Is a temporary allottee of evacuee land entitled to notice before the cancellation of their allotment?
- IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS, KOTRI1976 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-26Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR AHMAD BHATTI vs THE STATE1976 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal converted from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant, who was not named as either an actual assailant or a conspirator in the initial first information report, is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a murder case registered at Police Station City Sheikhupura. The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, thereby accepting the appeal and confirming the interim bail order previously granted. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person is not implicated in the initial first information report detailing the crime and naming specific assailants and conspirators, a case for pre-arrest bail is made out.
Questions settled- Is an accused person who is not named in the first information report entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the apprehended arrest is claimed to be due to ulterior motives?
- IJAZ AHMAD vs SHER BROTHER TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., LAHORE1976 PLC 142 · Labour Court · 1975-05-04Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR WEAVING FACTORY vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1976 PLC 769 · Labour Court · 1975-01-12Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs ISLAMABAD, OMNIBUS SERVICE1976 PLC 25 · Labour Court · 1975-05-21Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-18Read full judgment →
- I. C. P. EMPLOYEES' FRONT, KARACHI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY vs PRESIDING OFFICER, VTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
- I. C. P. EMPLOYEES' FRONT, KARACHI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY vs PRESIDING OFFICER, VTH RIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
- I FAIZ NAJMUDDIN ABDUL ALI vs THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAWAL PINDI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-03Read full judgment →
- HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD vs Rana MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1976 PLC 573 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-23Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN KARIM vs MESSRS CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER1976 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-23Read 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 an order of the Labour Court. The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court without providing the mandatory notice to the employer as required by law. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court could exercise jurisdiction in the absence of this notice. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's failure to comply with the notice requirement was a clear contravention of the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition, as the Labour Court's order was consistent with established law and authority. The Supreme Court affirmed that strict adherence to procedural prerequisites, such as the service of notice to an employer, is essential before invoking the jurisdiction of a Labour Court. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is the service of notice to an employer a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Standing Order No. 18?
- Can a writ petition succeed if the petitioner failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements before approaching the Labour Court?
- HUMAYUN KHAN vs REPCO, RAWALPINDI1976 PLC 853 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-07-18Read full judgment →
- HRISHIKESH GANGULY (THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA ,1976 PTD 386 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B. MALIK vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1976 PTD 459 · Allahabad High Court · 1970-08-31Read full judgment →
- HMI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 69 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-16Read full judgment →
- HIRJINA & CO. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHIAND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
- HIRJINA & Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
- HIRJINA & Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI AND Another vs S. A. MATIN AND Other1976 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an appellate order by the Provincial Secretary, which had overturned a demolition notice issued by the Karachi Municipal Corporation for a dangerous building. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Secretary acted lawfully in reversing the demolition order based on findings of mala fides and alleged landlord negligence that were unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly determined the Provincial Secretary’s order was based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, specifically noting the Secretary's failure to consider a technical report from the Karachi Development Authority and the lack of evidence regarding the landlords' conduct. The Court affirmed that demolition orders under municipal law are distinct from rent restriction proceedings and that the Secretary’s findings were unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that an appellate authority must base its decisions on the record and cannot ignore relevant technical evidence or rely on non-existent facts, as doing so renders the decision without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can an appellate authority ignore a technical report commissioned by the original appellate authority when deciding on the demolition of a dangerous building?
- Does a demolition order issued under the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 violate the protections afforded to tenants under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is an appellate order based on non-existent facts and extraneous considerations liable to be set aside as being without lawful authority?
- HIRAI AND 7 OTHERS Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-05Read full judgment →
- HIDAYATULLAH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, convicting seven accused persons for double murder, attempt to murder, causing simple injuries, and rioting. The core legal questions involved determining the credibility of the ocular testimony versus the defence plea of private defence and sudden fight, and assessing the applicability of constructive liability under unlawful assembly. The Lahore High Court held that the occurrence was a sudden flare-up and a free fight rather than a premeditated attack by an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, extended the benefit of doubt to certain appellants, altered convictions where appropriate, and reduced the death sentences of the remaining convicts to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that in sudden mutual fights without pre-planning, individual liability replaces constructive liability under an unlawful assembly, and death sentences are appropriately commuted to life imprisonment when the incident lacks premeditation.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution version or the defence plea of private defence is established in a case involving mutual injuries?
- Can constructive liability under an unlawful assembly be sustained in the case of a sudden flare-up and free fight?
- Whether the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life when a murder is committed during a sudden and unpremeditated fight?
- Is a co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when no specific fatal part is attributed to him?
- HIDAYAT ULLAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a revision petition regarding the cancellation of a land mutation. The appellant had obtained a mutation as the sole heir of a deceased right-holder, which the respondent later challenged, alleging fraud and concealment of material facts. The core legal questions concerned whether the principle of res judicata applied due to a prior administrative order by a Collector, whether the mutation could be challenged despite the absence of an appeal, and whether the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, to cancel allotments obtained by fraud was subject to any limitation period or controlled by Section 19 of the same Act. The Supreme Court held that the Collector’s administrative order did not constitute res judicata. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 10 of the Act provides plenary, self-contained powers to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel fraudulent allotments, which are not subject to any period of limitation or the constraints of Section 19. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to an administrative order passed by a Collector regarding a land mutation?
- Is the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel an allotment obtained by fraud under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 subject to a period of limitation?
- Is the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 controlled by the revisional provisions of Section 19 of the same Act?
- HIDAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT SHAH AND 6 Other vs Mst. MURAD KHATUN1976 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-05Read full judgment →
- HEAVY VEHICLE OPERATORS' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS1976 PLC 658 · Labour Court · 1975-08-17Read full judgment →
- HAZARA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 106 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal question revolves around the evidentiary value of a dying declaration and whether it requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that while a dying declaration can form the basis of a conviction if found genuine, voluntary, and made by a fit person, courts as a matter of abundant caution seek independent corroboration before relying upon it. The ratio decidendi is that where a dying declaration is corroborated by independent evidence such as motive and medical testimony against one accused, his conviction shall be maintained; however, where no corroboration exists against a co-accused attributed an ineffective shot, his conviction must be set aside on the principle of benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include the requirements for testing the mental fitness of a declarant, the necessity of corroboration for uncorroborated dying declarations, and the standards for assessing interested ocular witnesses.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without independent corroboration?
- Whether a dying declaration recorded in the presence of a medical officer certifying the fitness of the injured person is admissible and reliable?
- Does the absence of corroborative evidence regarding a co-accused warrant his acquittal despite being named in the dying declaration?
- Is the recovery of an unlicensed weapon sufficient to corroborate a murder charge when no spent cartridge matching the weapon is recovered from the crime scene?
- HASSAN KHAN vs MRS. MUNAWAR BEGUM1976 PLD Karachi 832 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned an ejectment application filed by a landlord against his tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The lower courts dismissed the application, finding no wilful default due to the landlord's acceptance of lump-sum payments and disbelieving his medical evidence for personal use. The High Court, in appeal, held that the practice of accepting lump-sum rent payments, especially when initiated or acquiesced to by the landlord, negates wilful default, distinguishing it from cases where a tenant unilaterally asserts such a practice. On the issue of bona fide requirement, the Court ruled that the landlord's assertion of personal need, even if based on illness, should be accepted if consistent with his pleadings and not disproved, and that his choice of residence is his prerogative. Furthermore, it was held that the requirement for "own occupation" extends to the landlord's wife and family, allowing the deceased landlord's heirs to pursue the ejectment. The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was ordered to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a tenant be deemed in wilful default of rent payment if the landlord has a practice of accepting lump-sum payments?
- Is medical evidence always necessary to prove a landlord's bona fide requirement of premises for personal use due to illness?
- Does a landlord's choice of which of his properties to occupy for personal use fall within his prerogative?
- Can the legal heirs of a deceased landlord continue an ejectment application based on bona fide personal requirement?
- What is the scope of "own occupation" in the context of a landlord's requirement for premises?
- HASSAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 997 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- HASAN SAYAID vs MACHINERY POOL ORGANISATION, WAPDA1976 PLC 344 · Labour Court · 1974-05-22Read full judgment →
- HASAN MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1976 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning an exchange of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the Thal Development Act, 1949, permitted an individual exchange of proprietary land, originally acquired from the Thal Development Authority and subsequently sold, with State land for the purpose of consolidating a proprietor's holding in a different village. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had affirmed the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, setting aside the exchange. The Court held that Section 21(2) of the Thal Development Act, 1949, which authorizes the Thal Development Authority to frame schemes for land acquisition, lease, or exchange, does not sanction individual, ad hoc exchanges of proprietary land with State land for consolidation. Such a transaction, lacking specific legal provision within the Act, was deemed without legal authority.
Questions settled- Does Section 21(2) of the Thal Development Act, 1949, permit individual exchanges of proprietary land with State land for consolidation purposes?
- Can an individual exchange of proprietary land with State land be sanctioned without a specific provision in the governing statute?
- Is an appeal under the Letters Patent maintainable against an order dismissing a writ petition in view of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972?
- HARIDWAR DUBEY vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1976 PTD 48 · Allahabad High Court · 1969-09-29Read full judgment →
- HAQ NIWAZ vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, HOMEPLD1976 Lahore 1013 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAMID MUKHTAR vs PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD.1976 PLC 766 · Labour Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- HAMID AHMAD AND Other vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, WAQF PROPERTIES1976 PLD Supreme Court 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal concerning the eviction of tenants from waqf properties. The appellants claimed to be tenants of various tharas (platforms) attached to a mosque, having constructed structures and paid rent initially to previous lessees and later directly to the Auqaf Department after it took over the property under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961. The Auqaf Department issued eviction notices, prompting the appellants to file a civil suit. The lower courts concurrently held that the appellants were mere licensees whose status ended with the expiration of the head-lease. The core legal question was whether the appellants were mere licensees or valid sub-lessees protected under statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly regarding sub-leases and the effect of accepting rent after the determination of a lease. The Court ruled that the appellants were valid sub-lessees entitled to continue until evicted in due course of law, and could not be summarily evicted under section 6-A of the Ordinance. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the finding that the appellants were licensees.
Questions settled- Whether occupants who entered into possession through previous lessees and whose rent was accepted by the Auqaf Department qualify as sub-lessees or mere licensees?
- Does the acceptance of rent by a lessor after the determination of a lease operate as a renewal of the lease in favor of an under-lessee under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can occupants be summarily evicted under section 6-A of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, when their entry and continued occupation are lawful?
- HAKIMUDDIN vs ARSHAD MAHMOOD AND Other1976 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the disputed transfer of property tenements. The petitioner claimed ownership of tenements G/1 and G/2, asserting they were purchased via public auction from settlement authorities. However, the petitioner failed to provide any departmental record, public notice of auction, bid sheet, or confirmation of sale to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, no Provisional Transfer Order or Permanent Transfer Deed was ever issued in the petitioner's favor, nor was there evidence of payment. Conversely, the record demonstrated that the tenements were transferred to respondent No. 2, who held valid transfer documents and had paid the evaluation price. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's claim, finding no merit in the contention given the complete absence of supporting documentation. The petition for special leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming that a claim of property transfer by auction must be supported by verifiable departmental records.
Questions settled- Can a claim of property purchase through public auction be sustained without supporting departmental records or proof of payment?
- Is a petitioner entitled to claim property transfer based on an alleged auction sale when no transfer documents were issued in their favor?
- Hakim SHER AHMAD CHISHTI vs Syed ABBAS AND 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil revisions arising from a suit filed by the Shia community seeking a declaration of their right to conduct religious processions (Azzadari) and challenging the refusal of police protection. The core legal question was whether the community possesses an inherent right to take out such processions and whether the authorities can impose a total ban or require prior licensing under the Police Act and Police Rules. The Court held that citizens have an inherent right to take out religious processions on public highways, subject to reasonable regulation to prevent breaches of the peace. It ruled that Section 30 of the Police Act does not authorize a total ban or a permanent, general licensing requirement, but only allows for regulation when a breach of peace is apprehended. Furthermore, Rule 21.22 of the Police Rules does not create an independent obligation to obtain prior permission from the District Magistrate. The Court restored the trial court's decree, affirming that the right to procession is subject to the provisions of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act.
Questions settled- Does the public have an inherent right to conduct religious processions along public highways?
- Does Section 30 of the Police Act authorize the police to impose a total ban on religious processions?
- Is a prior license from the District Magistrate mandatory for every religious procession under Rule 21.22 of the Police Rules?
- Can a civil court grant an injunction that interferes with the public duties of government departments under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act?
- Hakim NAZIR AHMED vs GHULAM MUHAYYUDDIN Another1976 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of an evacuee house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII to the respondent by drawing lots in 1960, followed by the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed. After more than eleven years, the petitioner challenged the transfer through a belated appeal, which was initially entertained by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and maintained in revision. However, the High Court set aside these orders upon a writ petition, concluding that the appeal was a mere counter-blast to ejectment proceedings and that the property was no longer available for transfer once the Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued. The core legal question involves the sustainability of a belated challenge to the transfer of an evacuee property after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted against the High Court's judgment where the belated challenge lacked bona fides.
Questions settled- Whether a belated appeal against the transfer of evacuee property filed after eleven years is maintainable?
- Can a writ petition be entertained against a remand order passed by a settlement authority?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed bar the subsequent transfer of an evacuee house to another claimant?
- HAKIM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE Holds SECRETARY, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 789 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
- Hakim ALI AHMED (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) vs RAMCHAND MANJIMAL1976 PLD Karachi 933 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
- HAKEEMUDDIN vs Mst. MAFIA AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 969 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
- HAKEEMUDDIN vs Mst. MAFIA AND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 969 · Sindh High Court · 1916-04-25Read full judgment →
- Hakeem ALLAH BAKHSH vs AHMAD DIN (THROUGH HIS HEIRS)1976 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership and rental recovery of a shop. The deceased respondent, Ahmad Din, sued for rent, claiming partial ownership. Following litigation, the Custodian of Evacuee Property determined the respondent held a 14/64 share in the property. The trial court decreed the recovery of the claimed amount based on the petitioner's admission, though the petitioner contested the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership. The Additional District Judge subsequently modified the decree, affirming the respondent's ownership share. The petitioner challenged the execution of this decree, arguing it was a consent decree and that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the decree was based on an admission rather than consent, thus allowing for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that the petitioner could not raise objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction in revision proceedings after having admitted the claim at the trial stage. The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Can a decree passed on the basis of a defendant's admission be classified as a consent decree for the purposes of Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a party entitled to challenge the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court in revision proceedings after having admitted the claim at the trial stage?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to incidentally determine ownership rights based on findings previously established by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- HAKAM QURESHI, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, LAHORE AND 2 Other vs THE JUDGES OF THE LAHORE HIGH CURT THROUGH THE REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Supreme Court 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court convicting three prominent advocates of criminal contempt for organizing a procession in Lahore displaying placards and shouting slogans undermining the authority and dignity of the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether participating in such a procession and displaying ambiguous placards constitutes contempt of court, and whether the High Court's contempt jurisdiction is dependent upon statutory rules or specific legislation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the procession and its inscriptions were a direct affront intended to scandalize and pressure the High Court, and that freedom of speech under Article 19 is subject to reasonable restrictions relating to contempt of court. The Court laid down that while a strong and independent bar is essential, the privileges and protections of advocates apply to professional conduct within courtrooms, not to public slogan-mongering and street processions intended to undermine judicial authority, and that the constitutional power to punish for contempt is absolute and not contingent upon enabling rules.
Questions settled- Whether participating in a procession of advocates displaying placards with slogans regarding pending contempt matters constitutes criminal contempt of court?
- Does the constitutional power of superior courts to punish for contempt under Article 204 remain inchoate or dependent upon the enactment of regulatory laws or rules?
- Are the freedom of speech guarantees under Article 19 of the Constitution subject to restrictions regarding contempt of court?
- Can the principles of policy in Chapter 2 of Part II of the Constitution override or invalidate the law of contempt?
- HAJIMUD DIN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1418 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- Haji WALI MU HAMMAD AND 129 Other vs POWER-LOOMS WORKERS' UNION1976 PLC 834 · Labour Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
- Haji SULEMAN vs MESSRS EASTERN RICE SYNDICATE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- Haji SULEMAN vs MESSRS EASTERN RICE SYNDICATE AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for the recovery of Rs. 36,000 paid as earnest money/advance under a forward contract for the purchase of goods. The core legal question was whether the respondent-seller was in breach of contract for failing to clear goods from customs, thereby justifying the appellant-buyer's termination and claim for a refund, and whether the respondent could retain the advance payment absent proof of actual loss. The Court held that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to clear the goods as stipulated in the indemnity bond, despite the appellant's repeated requests. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a buyer is in default, a seller cannot automatically forfeit earnest money or advance payments without proving actual loss or setting up a counter-claim for reasonable compensation. Relying on the principle that forfeiture clauses are subject to the requirement of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court set aside the dismissal and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a seller forfeit earnest money or advance payments without proving actual loss or sustaining damages?
- Does a breach of a specific term of a contract justify the other party in terminating the contract?
- Is a seller entitled to retain advance payments if they fail to perform their contractual obligation to clear goods from customs?
- Does Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to the forfeiture of deposits or earnest money?
- HAJI SHAH AND 15 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, KARACHI1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 93 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Haji NIZAM KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR AND Other1976 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose out of proceedings before a Family Court wherein minor children of a deceased son claimed maintenance from their paternal grandfather under Muslim Law. The petitioner (grandfather) contended that no statutory duty was cast upon him to maintain the children of his deceased son and that rules of Muslim Personal Law regarding maintenance were impliedly excluded by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, and the Punjab Laws Act, 1872. The core legal questions involved whether the Family Court was competent to apply substantive Muslim Law to resolve the grandfather's liability for maintenance, and how the expression 'justice, equity and good conscience' should be interpreted under Pakistani jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of explicit statutory exclusion, and where statutes are silent or leave a vacuum, the residuary law to be applied in Pakistan is Muslim jurisprudence and the fundamental principles of Islam rather than English common law or rules of equity. The Court affirmed the lower decisions, holding that a grandfather in easy circumstances is bound under Muslim Law to maintain his needy grandchildren, and dismissed the writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether a paternal grandfather in easy circumstances is legally bound under Muslim Law to maintain his needy minor grandchildren?
- Does the omission of maintenance from Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, amount to an express or implied exclusion of Muslim Law on the subject?
- Whether the expression 'justice, equity and good conscience' in Pakistani jurisprudence should be interpreted in accordance with English common law or Islamic law and jurisprudence?
- Are the superior courts in Pakistan empowered to apply Islamic law and its juridical principles to fill gaps and vacuums in unoccupied fields of statutory law?
- Haji NAWAB KHAN vs FAZALUR RAHMAN And Another1976 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had filed a suit for pre-emption, and the trial court decreed the suit, conditional upon the payment of a specific sum by a fixed date. The petitioner failed to deposit the full amount within the stipulated time due to a calculation error, resulting in the automatic dismissal of the suit as per the terms of the decree. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner responsible for his own negligence. The core legal question was whether the court could extend the time for making the deposit after the default had occurred. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a decree explicitly states that a suit shall stand dismissed upon default of payment, the decree becomes operative of its own force upon such default, and the court lacks the authority to extend the time fixed thereunder. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din that such time cannot be extended.
Questions settled- Can a court extend the time for making a deposit in a pre-emption suit after the suit has already stood dismissed due to default in payment?
- Does a decree that provides for the automatic dismissal of a suit upon failure to pay a specified amount become operative of its own force upon such default?
- Is a party entitled to an extension of time for a deposit required by a court decree based on a claim of bona fide miscalculation?
- HAJI MUHAMMD ARBAB vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE, BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD AND 5 OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 133 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD vs CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS LTD.1976 PLC 774 · Labour Court · 1975-01-12Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
- Haji JAN MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM GHAUS AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an ejectment order against a statutory tenant. The petitioner, a tenant of premises transferred to the respondent, was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller due to default in rent payment. While the District Judge initially set aside the ejectment order invoking the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the High Court reversed this decision. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of part performance could be invoked by a tenant who had defaulted on rent payments despite an agreement to sell the premises that contained no exemption from rent liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's continued occupation and non-payment of rent did not constitute valid part performance, particularly as the agreement of sale did not exempt the tenant from rent obligations. The Court affirmed that a tenant cannot rely on part performance to justify rent default when the underlying agreement does not provide such an exemption.
Questions settled- Can a tenant invoke the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to justify non-payment of rent when the agreement to sell does not exempt such payment?
- Does the pendency of a legal issue before a Full Bench constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Can a new legal plea regarding the necessity of a notice under the Rent Restriction Ordinance be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the High Court?
- Haji ISHTIAQ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs BAKHSHAYA AND 7 Other1976 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, directing deposit of the pre-emption money by a specified date. The plaintiff appealed to seek a reduction in the sale price, and the appellate court allowed security instead of deposit. The appeal was ultimately dismissed without any direction regarding the time for depositing the pre-emption money. The plaintiff deposited the amount after a delay of over a month and sought amendment of the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fix a time limit. The High Court reversed the lower court's allowance, holding that such an omission could not be corrected under Section 152. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Section 152 only permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips, not substantive omissions requiring judicial application of mind. Where an appellate court omits to specify a time limit, the deposit must be made within a reasonable time, failing which the suit stands dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an omission by an appellate court to specify a time limit for depositing pre-emption money can be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal consequence if an appellate court dismisses a pre-emptor's appeal without specifying a fresh time limit for depositing the pre-emption money?
- Can a court use Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to make substantive additions to a decree that require the application of mind?
- Haji IBRAHIM vs ISMAIL AND 9 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
- Haji IBRAHIM vs ISMAIL AND 9 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULANI HUSSAIN Alias SHARBAT KHAN vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN alias SHARBAT KHAN vs TEE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-15Read full judgment →
- Haji FAIZUL HAQUE KHAN vs Syed ABDUL HAMID AND Another1976 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop premises in Quetta under settlement laws, where the appellant was issued a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and subsequently a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The core legal question revolved around whether the respondent had a valid entitlement to the transfer of the shop through a non-claimant settlement form (N.C.S. Form) and whether settlement authorities could interfere with property after the issuance of a P.T.D. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the respondent failed to establish a genuine claim or legal entitlement to the transfer, and that settlement authorities lack the power to cancel transfer documents once a P.T.D. has been validly issued. The key principles laid down include that a non-claimant cannot claim transfer through an allottee unless possessing independent statutory standing under the law and rules, and that completed property transfers culminating in a P.T.D. are final and protected against reopening by settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Whether a non-claimant can claim the transfer of a shop through an allottee without independent statutory possession?
- Can settlement authorities cancel or interfere with property transfer documents after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Whether an application for the transfer of property based on a belatedly produced settlement form is sustainable when contradicted by prior conduct?
- HAJI AND 4 Others vs The STATE1976 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan maintaining the convictions and sentences of five appellants under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for a double murder. The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony, motive, medical evidence, and weapon recoveries. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, uncorroborated or weakly corroborated against individual accused, was sufficient to sustain convictions against all appellants in a case involving old enmity and partisan witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where enmity creates a risk of false implication, independent and reliable corroborative evidence is essential against each accused. While the conviction of one appellant (Kechi) was upheld based on conclusive ballistic matching of crime empties with a recovered weapon, the convictions and sentences of the remaining four appellants were set aside due to lack of safe corroboration and inconsistencies between the medical and ocular accounts. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving deep-rooted prior enmity and partisan witnesses, ocular testimony must be strictly scrutinized and corroborated by independent, reliable evidence specific to each accused.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony alone is sufficient for conviction in cases involving old enmity without reliable independent corroboration?
- Can the recovery of a licensed weapon along with its license under suspicious circumstances furnish safe corroboration for a criminal charge?
- Whether the absence of incised wounds on the victims disproves the participation of accused allegedly armed with sharp-edged weapons?
- Does the matching of crime empties by a ballistics expert with a weapon recovered at the instance of an accused provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
- Haji ALLAH DITTA M. A. DIN NAWAZISH ALI vs Mst. SHAHZADI BILQEES AND ANOTHER1976 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed first appeals against a Rent Controller's order. The Rent Controller had closed the petitioners' evidence when their witnesses failed to appear on an adjourned date and subsequently dismissed an application filed by the petitioners under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking review of that order, on the ground that he possessed no power of review. The core question before the Supreme Court concerned the correctness of closing the petitioners' evidence and the refusal to review the said order. Upon the concession of the learned Advocate-on-Record for the caveators, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court. The Court ordered that the petitioners be permitted to produce the evidence that was shut out, laying down that by consent of parties, eviction proceedings may be remanded to allow a party a fair opportunity to produce evidence.
Questions settled- Can an order closing a party's evidence be set aside by consent of parties to allow the evidence to be produced?
- Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for special leave to appeal into an appeal and dispose of it in terms of a compromise or concession between the parties?
- Haji ALI MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs Tee STATE1976 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-20Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMAD YAR vs WARTS MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
- HAJI AHMAD AWAN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1976 PLC (C.S.T.] 56 · Administrative Tribunal · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
- HAIDER ETC. vs GHULAM HAIDER Etcs1976 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These thirty-seven certificated appeals arose out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning disputes between Ala and Adna Maliks. During the pendency of the proceedings, mutations were effected pursuant to Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959, deleting the names of the appellants from the revenue records and upholding the respondents as owners. Although the appellants initially sought to withdraw their appeals, subsequent requests to adjourn the matters pending decisions by the Land Commission and the High Court were entertained. Ultimately, the Chief Land Commissioner decided the matter against the appellants, and a writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed in limine by the High Court and left unchallenged. When the appeals finally came up for hearing, the appellants and their counsel failed to enter an appearance or press their claims, and certain parties were unrepresented due to death without legal representatives being brought on record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the stale appeals pending. The core legal principle applied is that appellate proceedings will be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellants persistently fail to appear or prosecute their appeals, particularly where intervening administrative and judicial decisions under land reforms have rendered the subject matter effectively settled.
Questions settled- What is the consequence when appellants fail to enter an appearance or press their appeals at the final hearing?
- Whether appeals should be kept pending indefinitely when the underlying administrative decisions affecting the subject matter have attained finality?
- HAIDER ALI vs KHUDA DINO AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of proceedings pending before the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, arising from a direct complaint for an offence under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the facts stated in the complaint disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust or merely constituted a civil dispute arising from a business loan secured by a promissory note, and whether continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction was a pure business loan and that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were absent. The court laid down the principle that initiating criminal proceedings to enforce a civil liability or to coerce a party through pressure, where no criminal offence is disclosed, constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Do the facts of a case disclosing a pure business loan and a promissory note constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust?
- Whether criminal proceedings initiated merely to enforce a civil liability amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any offence under the Penal Code?
- Haft MUHAMMAD S1DDIQ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD YAMIN AND Others vs Qazi GHULAM MUSTAFA AND Another1976 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly decreed the plaintiff-respondent's second appeal by granting a declaration that he was entitled to remain in possession of the disputed agricultural land under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The plaintiff had entered into a registered agreement of sale, paid part of the consideration, and claimed possession, which the High Court found he had indeed acquired and maintained through an erstwhile lessee. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had acquired and held possession under the agreement of sale so as to invoke the protection of part performance, and whether a subsequent vendee could repudiate the title. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's factual findings regarding possession were well-founded and that the essential ingredients of section 53-A were satisfied. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the subsequent repudiation of title by a tenant does not negate prior acquisition of possession under a sale agreement.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can invoke the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without proving acquisition of possession under the agreement of sale?
- Does the subsequent repudiation of a plaintiff's title by an erstwhile tenant negate the fact that possession was acquired under a sale agreement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or detailed factual findings of the High Court regarding possession without strong grounds?
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD HANIF vs NIAZUDDIN1976 PLD Karachi 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL SATTAR vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 26 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
- HADI BUX AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-14Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs SETTLEMEN C & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, RAWALPINDI1976 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the auction price of an evacuee building site in Chakwal Town, initially purchased by the petitioner. The core legal question involves determining the correct auction price of the property and whether a token issued by settlement authorities serves as conclusive evidence of that price. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the question of the auction price is one of fact, properly determined by the settlement authorities and the High Court upon examining relevant registers in the absence of authentic auction proceedings, and that the token relied upon by the petitioner is not prescribed by law or instructions as conclusive evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that findings of fact by lower tribunals regarding the true auction price based on record examination will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether an informal token issued by settlement authorities constitutes conclusive evidence of the auction price of evacuee property?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities and the High Court regarding the auction price?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against concurrent factual determinations made by settlement tribunals?
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs PAKISTAN1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 39 · Civil Services Tribunal · 1975-03-21Read full judgment →
- HABIBUL WAHHAB ELKHEIRI, ADVOCATE vs Sh. SHAUKAT ALI, ADVOCATE1976 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK STAFF UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 57 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-11-14Read full judgment →
- H. RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HABIB AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- H. RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD HABIB AND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- GULZAR KHAN vs Mst. SHAHZAD BIBI AND Another1976 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land transferred by a brother to his wife in lieu of dower. The core legal question was whether such a transaction constitutes a sale subject to the right of pre-emption and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a transfer of property in lieu of dower is not subject to the right of pre-emption because it contains an element of gift. Regarding the second issue, the Court clarified that while inferences drawn from evidence are findings of fact, the proper construction of a document is a question of law. Consequently, the High Court acted within its jurisdiction to interpret the document and determine the nature of the transaction. The Court affirmed that such transfers are not pre-emptible, establishing that the legal characterization of a document is a reviewable question of law rather than a mere finding of fact.
Questions settled- Is a transfer of property in lieu of dower subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Is the construction of a document a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact if it involves the construction of a document?
- GULZAR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting five appellants under sections 148, 302/149, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and rioting, resulting in death sentences and transportation for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of hostile eye-witnesses whose previous statements were transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the requirement of independent corroboration for such statements, the evidentiary value of delayed and unsealed blood-stained weapon recoveries, and the applicability of the right of private defense regarding property. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the participation of four of the appellants, who were accordingly acquitted. Regarding the sole remaining appellant, the court found that the incident stemmed from a sudden altercation over crop damage by a stray horse, attracting the right of private defense and reducing the offence. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses turn hostile, their previous statements under Section 288 Cr.P.C. require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and where a sudden fight ensues over the defense of property without premeditation, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is attracted.
Questions settled- Whether statements of hostile witnesses transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require independent corroboration before they can form the basis of a conviction?
- Does a delay in dispatching blood-stained weapon recoveries to the Chemical Examiner render the recovery evidence valueless?
- Whether an accused acting in defense of property against the trespass of a horse who exceeds the right of private defense can be convicted under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code instead of Section 302?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses who change their stance between the committing magistrate and the trial court be safely relied upon to convict multiple co-accused?
- GULZAR AHMAD vs ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SETTLEMENT OFFICE, BAHAWALPUR1976 PLC [C. S. T] 1 (1) · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-11-03Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 32 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-03Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD AND Another vs Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND ANOTHER1976 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order, which had set aside an administrative decision by a Settlement Commissioner. The dispute arose from the transfer of a three-storeyed house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, where various parties claimed portions of the property. The core legal question was whether a Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction under Section 21(3) of the Act to review or interpret a final order passed by a predecessor, and whether the petitioners were entitled to additional portions of the property based on the interpretation of previous transfer orders. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to review the earlier order. Furthermore, upon examining the original transfer order, the Court found that the property had been clearly divided into independent units, and the petitioners' claim to portions falling within the respondent's share was inconsistent with the operative transfer order. The Court affirmed the principle that administrative authorities cannot exercise review powers not explicitly granted by statute and that final transfer orders must be interpreted according to their clear, unambiguous terms.
Questions settled- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to review an order passed by a predecessor under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can a party seek the interpretation of a final transfer order under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to expand their entitlement beyond the original scope of the transfer?
- Is a Settlement Commissioner empowered to alter the substantive effect of a final transfer order through a subsequent interpretative order?
- GULLAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
- GULF IRAN Co. AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD. AND OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- GULF IRAN CO. AND Another vs PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD. AND Other1976 PLD Karachi 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- GUL ZAMAN vs Ch. ABDUL MALIK AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the transfer of an evacuee residential property in Rawalpindi. The core legal question is whether the disputed property was urban residential property available for transfer to the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VIII or agricultural land previously allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The Supreme Court held that the authorities below and the High Court correctly determined on the evidence—including the Register Haqdaran and R.L. II Register—that the property was agricultural land and thus not available for subsequent transfer to the petitioner, declining to reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent findings. The key principle laid down is that minor constructions on a fraction of a larger agricultural plot do not alter the overall agricultural complexion of the property, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings where substantial justice has been done.
Questions settled- Whether a disputed property is to be treated as urban residential property or agricultural land under the relevant settlement laws?
- Does the existence of a small construction on a portion of an agricultural land change its entire complexion?
- Will the Supreme Court embark on a re-appraisement of evidence concurrent findings of lower tribunals?
- GUL RAUF KHAN AND Another vs ALAPTAGIN AND Another.1976 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- GUL RAUF KHAN AND ANoTHER vs ALAPTAGIN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- GUL MUNAWAR KHAN vs N. W. F. P. GOVERNMENT1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 50 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1975-01-24Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1976 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with an order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in relying upon the ocular testimony of an eyewitness and medical evidence, and whether the non-production of a chemical examiner's report regarding the victim's clothing warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on reliable eyewitness and medical evidence were unexceptionable, and the non-production of the chemical report did not prejudice the prosecution case under the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the non-production of a chemical examiner's report regarding the victim's clothing necessarily warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on the testimony of an eyewitness and medical evidence can be interfered with when no illegality is shown?
- GUL BAHAR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 593 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-24Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY P. W. D.1976 PLD Supreme Court 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Governor of West Pakistan. The respondent, a Superintending Engineer, was suspended pending an inquiry into misconduct. The inquiry was subsequently dropped because the respondent had turned an approver in a connected criminal proceeding, and he was re-instated. The Governor ordered under Rule 7.3(b) of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, that the suspension period would not be treated as duty, allowing only subsistence allowance, on the ground that the respondent was not 'honourably acquitted'. The High Court, relying on a concession by the Advocate-General, held that dropping the inquiry amounted to an honourable acquittal. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that 'honourable acquittal' requires a trial on merits and a finding that the allegations were false, not merely dropped or unproved. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a concession on a point of law by counsel does not bind the party or the court.
Questions settled- Does the dropping of a departmental inquiry against a government servant amount to an 'honourable acquittal' under the Civil Services Rules?
- What is the legal definition and requirement of an 'honourable acquittal' for the purpose of claiming full pay during suspension?
- Is a concession made by an Advocate-General or counsel on a pure question of law binding upon the party or the court?
- GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN (NOW PUNJAB) THROUGH COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR vs HAJI MUHAMMAD1976 PLD Supreme Court 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit filed by a respondent, a temporary government employee (Mali), challenging his removal from service without a show-cause notice. The core legal question was whether a temporary government servant, particularly one classified as a menial or contingent employee, is entitled to constitutional protection against removal from service without a show-cause notice, and whether such an employee holds a 'civil post.' The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed the holder of a civil post, as the term encompasses any office on the civil side of the administration, regardless of the temporary nature of the tenure or the class of the employee. The Court ruled that the constitutional guarantee against removal from service applies to all holders of civil posts, overriding departmental rules that might otherwise dispense with show-cause notices for temporary or contingent staff. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional protection against arbitrary removal is not limited by the tenure of the employee or their classification as 'temporary' or 'contingent,' provided they hold a civil post under the state.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional protection against removal from service apply to temporary government servants?
- What constitutes a 'civil post' under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can departmental rules override the constitutional requirement to provide a show-cause notice before removing a civil servant?
- Is a government employee paid from the contingency fund excluded from the definition of holding a civil post?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY. IRRIGATIONI AND POWER1976 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs Syed YASIN/Applicant1976 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, who successfully defended a civil petition for special leave to appeal which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, sought directions from the Court to compel the Government of Pakistan to pay him arrears of salary for two years based on a decree obtained by him and upheld by the Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was misconceived, clarifying that the proper remedy for the petitioner to seek implementation of the terms of the decree is to apply directly to the Government or to file a writ petition in the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a petition filed in the Supreme Court to seek directions for the implementation of a decree maintainable?
- What is the proper remedy for a decree-holder seeking implementation of a decree from the Government of Pakistan when the Supreme Court has upheld it?
- Can the Supreme Court issue directions for the payment of arrears of salary based on an upheld decree under a miscellaneous petition?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. THROUGH HOME SECRETARY Ama 2 OTHERS vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-07-17Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. THROUGH HOME SECRETARY AND 2 Other vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-07-17Read full judgment →
- GLIULAM MOHAYUDDIN alias MUHAMMAD PANAH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether a belated defence theory, raised for the first time at the appellate stage, warranted consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, finding the prosecution's ocular and circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports and recoveries, to be reliable. The Court laid down the principle that an accused cannot introduce a new plea of self-defence at the appellate stage if it was not raised or supported by evidence during the trial. Additionally, the Court held that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically invalidate a prosecution case, provided that the testimony of related witnesses is consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by other evidence, particularly given the prevailing societal reluctance of independent persons to testify in criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an accused raise a plea of self-defence for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Does the failure to produce independent witnesses necessarily weaken the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of related witnesses reliable if corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
- Can a statement made before a committing magistrate be transferred to the sessions file under Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?