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.
- SAADAT ULLAH KHAN Versus SIKANDAR HAYAT SHAHEEN1991 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA Versus SABLAN1991 SCMR 2530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court order that upheld the trial court's decision to non-suit the plaintiffs for failing to appear in person as directed under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under the penal provisions of Order X, Rule 4(2) and whether the necessary conditions for invoking such a penalty were strictly satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion, particularly given the status of the plaintiffs as females and minors. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Order X, Rule 4(2) is a penal provision requiring strict construction; the conditions precedent under sub-rule (1)—specifically the refusal or inability of a party to answer material questions—must be established beyond reasonable doubt before penal action is taken. As these conditions were not satisfied, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case for trial on merits.
Questions settled- Is the power to pronounce judgment under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or discretionary?
- Must the conditions precedent under Order X, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be strictly established before penal action is taken under sub-rule (2)?
- Should the status of plaintiffs as females or minors influence the court's exercise of discretion under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB Versus KHALID AHMAD KHAN1991 SCMR 2527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which arose from a judgment pronounced under Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the appellants' failure to file a written statement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts adhered to the precedent set in Sakhawatuddin v. Muhammad Iqbal regarding the imposition of penal consequences for failing to file a written statement. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to satisfy the legal requirement of issuing a 'speaking order' that explicitly demonstrates the court's application of mind in 'requiring' a written statement. The Court affirmed that penal consequences under Rule 10 only apply when the court has specifically required the written statement through such an order, rather than in routine instances. However, despite ruling on the legal point in favor of the appellants, the Court declined to set aside the decree, reasoning that further litigation would impose an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on the public exchequer given the small amount involved.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can penal consequences be imposed under Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to file a written statement?
- Is a routine order sufficient to require a written statement for the purposes of Order VIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to file a written statement that could be filed as of right under Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 attract the penal consequences of Rule 10?
- MIR BASHI Versus ALLAH KHAN1991 SCMR 2504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN KHAN Versus SABRAN BIBI , Nemo1991 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
- AKBAR JAN Versus CHAIRMAN DISTRICT EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE1991 SCMR 2206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment declaring certain land as "evacuee trust property" and addressed the lessees' entitlement to compensation for improvements. The core legal questions were whether the property constituted a religious trust and whether lessees could claim compensation for structures built after the lease expired. The Supreme Court held that the property, identified as a "Thakar Dawara" in historical revenue records, was indeed evacuee trust property. It affirmed that a formal trust deed is not strictly required to establish a religious trust if sufficient prima facie evidence, such as official revenue entries, exists. Regarding compensation, the Court ruled that the lessees were entitled to payment for improvements made under the lease conditions, as the Custodian had previously validated these terms. The key principle laid down is that the status of a religious trust can be determined by the rule of preponderance of evidence based on official records, and lessees of evacuee property retain rights to compensation for authorized improvements upon the termination of their lease.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a formal trust deed preclude a property from being declared as attached to a religious or charitable trust?
- Can revenue records serve as sufficient evidence to establish that a property is an evacuee trust property?
- Are lessees of evacuee trust property entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land upon the expiry of their lease?
- Is it necessary for the entire property to be used for religious purposes for it to be classified as property attached to a religious institution?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus CHAIRMAN PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1991 SCMR 2087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- BAGGO Versus HUSSAN BANO , M.S. Mahboob and M. Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocates Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record1991 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the inheritance of property originally owned by Ghulam Khan, who died in 1944. Following a 1926 Will, property was divided between his son, Fateh Khan, and his wife, Mst. Banni Begum. Litigation ensued regarding the property held by Mst. Banni Begum upon her death in 1964. The Lahore High Court disposed of the matter via an agreed order, declaring shares for all family members based on Islamic Law of Inheritance, intending to end all family litigation. The core legal question was whether this settlement applied only to the property of Mst. Banni Begum or to the entire estate of Ghulam Khan, including property held by Fateh Khan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment, by its language and the scope of the agreed shares, encompassed the entire estate of Ghulam Khan. The Court ruled that the settlement was a comprehensive resolution of all inheritance disputes, overriding previous testamentary dispositions that conflicted with Islamic Law. The principle established is that a consent decree intended to resolve family litigation should be interpreted to give effect to the parties' clear intention to distribute the entire estate according to Islamic Law of Inheritance.
Questions settled- Can a consent decree be challenged in appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a settlement regarding inheritance shares in a family dispute apply to the entire estate of the deceased or only the specific property subject to the suit?
- Can a court interpret an agreed order to include property not explicitly mentioned in the pleadings if the intent of the parties was to resolve all family litigation?
- MUNSHI MUHAMMAD Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN , M. Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate -on-Record1991 SCMR 2033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding re-polling at specific stations in a provincial assembly constituency. The core legal question was whether the ECP’s order for re-polling was issued under Section 103AA or Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and whether the High Court erred in its characterization of the order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by ignoring the record, which clearly indicated the ECP exercised its power under Section 27 due to the stoppage of polls caused by law and order issues. The Court clarified that the ECP’s jurisdiction is derived from the statute itself, not the specific provision cited by a petitioner in an application. Consequently, the Court ruled that an applicant cannot limit or control the amplitude of a statutory authority’s jurisdiction by invoking a particular section. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the respondent's Constitution Petition, affirming the validity of the ECP’s order under Section 27.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner limit the jurisdiction of a statutory authority by invoking a specific legal provision in their application?
- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to order a fresh poll under Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, when polling has been stopped due to law and order issues?
- Is the Election Commission of Pakistan's power to order a fresh poll under Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, dependent on the specific section cited by a complainant?
- MITHA KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1991 SCMR 2030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court was justified in maintaining the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure despite recording positive findings. The appellant had filed a suit alleging violation of an old agreement and compromise, which went through various tiers of adjudication including a Qazi, Majlis-e-Shoora, trial court, and appellate court before reaching the High Court in revision. The High Court had dismissed the proceedings holding that the plaint lacked a cause of action, was vague, and suffered from formal defects. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's assertions of a valid compromise and its subsequent violation clearly disclosed a cause of action, and that subsequent questions regarding vagueness, court-fee, or limitation are matters to be decided on merits or after providing an opportunity to rectify formal defects rather than outright rejection under Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court's finding on cause of action was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does a plaint claiming violation of a valid compromise disclose a sufficient cause of action?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of vagueness without affording an opportunity to correct defects?
- When do questions regarding limitation, court-fee, and form of suit arise in relation to a cause of action?
- NASEER AHMED UPPAL Versus PAKISTAN WAPDA1991 SCMR 1998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment whereby the Service Tribunal's order setting aside his retirement from WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act was itself set aside. The core legal question involved the scope of inquiry and validity of an action taken under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, particularly whether such termination requires a penal inquiry or fault commensurate with the action. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that an order under section 17(1-A) is not a penal order or an order requiring prior fault or adherence to Efficiency and Discipline Rules, but rather an order terminating service simpliciter based on subjective qualitative assessment or performance. The key principle laid down is that the standards of a penal order do not apply to termination under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, and failure to observe strict directions leading to potential financial irregularities constitutes a valid ground for termination without stigma.
Questions settled- Whether an order of retirement or termination under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is a penal order requiring prior fault?
- Can the validity of an action under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act be tested on the touchstone of Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- Does failure to keep correct contract documents by a Divisional Accountant constitute a valid ground for action under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- SULTAN JAN Versus SHER MUHAMMAD1991 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus ABDULLAH1991 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding an ex parte decree passed against the appellant in a civil suit. The appellant, who was incarcerated following a criminal conviction under Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, failed to appear in the Qazi's court on the date fixed for his written statement. Although the appellant's son submitted an adjournment application, the court proceeded ex parte. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in passing an ex parte decree against a defendant who was in judicial custody and had not been served with process for the relevant hearing date. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by failing to issue process to the appellant once it became aware of his detention. The Court emphasized that ex parte proceedings cannot be initiated without proper service of process, especially when a party's absence is involuntary due to incarceration. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh trial in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a court proceed ex parte against a defendant who is in judicial custody without issuing process to them?
- Does the appearance of a family member who is not a constituted attorney constitute a valid appearance for a defendant?
- Is an appellate court empowered to set aside an ex parte decree if the trial court failed to issue proper process to the defendant?
- GHULAM FATIMA Versus NOOR HUSSAIN1991 SCMR 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- 1991 SCMR 19571991 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- FAIZULLAH Versus YAQUB KHAN1991 SCMR 1925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1991 SCMR 1924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus NASIR AHMAD1991 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- SORAB KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN , Muhammad Shafi Rakhshani, Assistant Advocate-General, Balochistan1991 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a transporter holding a route permit between Quetta and Samungli, sought leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court judgment dated 3-4-1989 that set aside the cancellation of a route permit granted to respondent No.1. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation of the respondent's route permit, which had been cancelled by departmental authorities following allegations of misrepresentation and unauthorized vehicle substitution, a factual controversy that the High Court found unresolved by the authorities. The Supreme Court held that in light of its authoritative pronouncement on the grant of route permits in the case of Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority and others (1989 SCMR 79), no further question of law required examination. Furthermore, because the respondent had been plying the bus to the satisfaction of the authorities since the High Court judgment, the court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that where the legal position regarding route permits is settled by precedent and the factual operation of the route is running satisfactorily, leave to appeal against the setting aside of a permit cancellation may be refused.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a route permit is justified when departmental authorities fail to resolve underlying factual controversies regarding vehicle substitution and misrepresentation?
- Is leave to appeal warranted against the setting aside of a route permit cancellation when the matter is covered by settled precedent and the permit holder is operating to the satisfaction of the authorities?
- ZOHRA MAI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENE1991 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- NISAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus EXTRA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1991 SCMR 1898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM QURESHI Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BORAD OF REVENUE1991 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
- RESHAM JAN Versus ABDUL REHMAN1991 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the grant of bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question examined was whether the mere need for further inquiry entitles an accused to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence. Additionally, the complainant alleged misuse of the concession of bail through threatening witnesses, supported by a police report and proceedings under sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to bail under the circumstances and accordingly cancelled the bail, noting that the case did not fall within subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the respondent had misused bail. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be granted on the ground of further inquiry without satisfying the statutory requirement regarding reasonable grounds, and misuse of bail is a valid ground for its cancellation.
Questions settled- Does the mere need for further inquiry entitle an accused to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Is the misuse of the concession of bail by threatening witnesses a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- REHMAT ALI Versus FAZAL KARIM1991 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSOOB BUTT Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1991 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MIR BADSHAH1991 SCMR 1753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
- AKBAR JAN Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1991 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition arising from an urban settlement case regarding the auction-purchase of a shop. The core legal questions examined the validity of the auction by settlement authorities and the acceptance of purchase money deposits at a late stage despite prior orders contemplating resumption, alongside the propriety of exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the refusal of the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction was justified given the considerable inactivity and laches on the part of the appellants, who failed to challenge the transfer proceedings in a timely manner. Furthermore, the settlement authorities were empowered to extend the time for depositing the purchase amount under the circumstances. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise constitutional writ jurisdiction where a party shows considerable inactivity and laches in challenging settlement proceedings?
- Can settlement authorities lawfully extend the time for depositing the balance of auction-purchase money despite earlier orders contemplating resumption?
- Does the acceptance of a delayed deposit by settlement authorities warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a discretionary matter?
- FAZA KHAN Versus AHMAD KHAN1991 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns proceedings under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901, where respondents were convicted of murder. The core legal questions were whether the Deputy Commissioner could, under the Regulation, declare the convicts 'Dushman' (enemy) under tribal custom, and whether a perpetual prohibition against residing in their home locality was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the Frontier Crimes Regulation did not authorize the 'Dushman' declaration. Such a declaration, which implied immunity for future violence by the complainant, was ultra vires, lacked statutory basis, and violated principles against double jeopardy. Conversely, the Court upheld the prohibition on residing in the specific locality as a valid preventive measure under Section 36 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, provided it was not perpetual. The Court emphasized that administrative functionaries cannot exercise powers beyond those explicitly conferred by statute, and tribal customs cannot supersede the statutory limitations of the Regulation. Consequently, while the conviction and residency prohibition remained, the 'Dushman' declaration was annulled as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can a Deputy Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 declare a convict a 'Dushman' under tribal custom?
- Does the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 authorize a perpetual prohibition on a convict residing in their home locality?
- Is a preventive order under Section 36 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 required to be time-bound?
- Can a Council of Elders make recommendations beyond the scope of the specific question of guilt or innocence referred to them under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
- MAUJ DIN Versus BANO1991 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
- AYUB KHAN Versus HUSSAN FEROZ BEGUM1991 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1900-02-25Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI Versus THE STATE1991 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF RETIRED PERSONS Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1991 SCMR 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN Versus ABDUL KARIM1991 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus HURMAT1991 SCMR 1495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus SECRETARY FINANCE1991 SCMR 1491 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN Versus MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE -II1991 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court judgment regarding the validity of a land lease granted by the Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the 1975 lease of land situated within Quetta Municipal limits, which involved building construction, was validly granted by the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had affirmed the Member, Board of Revenue's finding that the lease was void ab initio. The Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked the legal authority to lease land within municipal limits for building purposes, rendering the grant a nullity in law. Consequently, the petitioners acquired no vested rights through the void lease. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities, such as the Board of Revenue, cannot act beyond the scope of their statutory powers, and any grant of land made in violation of such jurisdictional limits is void ab initio and confers no legal rights upon the grantee.
Questions settled- Can the Board of Revenue grant a lease for land situated within municipal limits if the purpose involves building construction?
- Is a lease granted by an authority acting beyond its statutory powers considered void ab initio?
- Does a void lease create any vested rights for the lessee?
- INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEE TRUST COMPANY LTD Versus ABIDA HUSSAIN1991 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner company's requests for the urgent hearing of a pending Constitution Petition during court vacations, by a larger Bench, and at the principal seat of the High Court were rejected. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the internal administrative decisions of the High Court regarding the constitution of benches, fixing of cases during vacations, and determination of hearing venues. The Supreme Court held that requests concerning the hearing of cases during vacations, constitution of larger benches, and venue of hearings are entirely administrative in nature and devoid of judicial content, and the High Court Chief Justice's discretion in such matters cannot be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not sit in judgment over administrative decisions taken by the Chief Justice of a High Court regarding case management and bench constitution, though parties may approach the High Court administratively if urgency requires.
Questions settled- Are requests for hearing a matter during vacations, before a larger bench, and at the principal seat of the High Court judicial or administrative in nature?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the refusal of a High Court Chief Justice to hear a case during vacations or constitute a larger bench?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus DAD MUHAMMAD1991 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN Versus BIBI KHORIAN1991 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABUL KALAM Versus DILSHAD1991 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed the respondent's first rent appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed flat and garage on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The core legal question is whether a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for ejectment is negated merely because she resides with her mother in a large house owned by the mother. The Supreme Court held that the ownership of property by a parent has no direct bearing on the child's bona fide personal requirement, and a landlord is not under any legal or moral obligation to permanently reside with her mother. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's finding.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's residence with her mother in a property owned by the mother negate the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
- Is a landlord under a legal or moral obligation to continue living with her mother for all time to come?
- WARIS ALI KHAN Versus ZAIBUN NISA1991 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the Peshawar High Court, which upheld orders allowing a pre-emptor decree-holder to deposit the balance purchase price. The respondent had filed a pre-emption suit which was ultimately decreed by the High Court, but the High Court's decree omitted to specify the amount and the time period for depositing the balance purchase price. The executing court subsequently permitted the deposit, a view maintained through appellate and revisional tiers. The core legal question concerned whether the executing court could permit the deposit of the balance purchase price and whether the decree had become infructuous due to non-deposit. The Supreme Court held that since the omission was attributable to the court's decree rather than any wilful default by the decree-holder, the executing court exercised its discretion reasonably and properly. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Can an executing court allow the deposit of a balance purchase price when the original appellate decree omitted to specify the amount and time for payment?
- Does the omission of payment timelines in a pre-emption decree render the decree infructuous due to non-deposit by the decree-holder?
- Is an appellate court empowered to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money in fit and suitable cases?
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR1991 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ADALAT KHAN Versus BEGUM BIBI1991 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a land inheritance dispute where the Lahore High Court had dismissed the plaintiff/appellant's suit by allowing the respondents' Regular Second Appeal, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata due to prior litigation. The core legal question was whether the appellant's claim as an heir was barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata based on an earlier suit where he had unsuccessfully claimed ownership through purchase. The Supreme Court held that the previous litigation did not finally determine the question of the appellant's maternity or status as an heir, and therefore neither res judicata nor constructive res judicata applied. The Court further evaluated the evidence, noting admissions by a co-heir and witnesses, and concluded that the appellant had successfully established his status as the son and co-heir of the deceased Mst. Dani. Consequently, the appeal was partly accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant's suit for inheritance was decreed.
Questions settled- Whether a previous suit claiming ownership through purchase operates as res judicata against a subsequent suit based on inheritance?
- Does a finding in an earlier suit that fails to finally determine a party's status as an heir attract the bar of res judicata?
- Can constructive res judicata be invoked when the plea of inheritance was already raised and put in issue in the previous litigation but left undetermined?
- Is the admission of a co-heir regarding the paternity or maternity of another claimant admissible against other respondents?
- ABDUL HAMEED NAZ Versus RAZIA BEGUM AWAN1991 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA Versus RAHIM BAKHSH1991 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED Versus YAR MUHAMMAD NIZAMI1991 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN Versus HAYAT BEGUM , Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record1991 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
- ZENAB BIBI Versus NISAR AHMAD1991 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1991 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AFZA Versus FRIENDS MUTUAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD.) , Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court & Nemo1991 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1991 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus WAPDA1991 SCMR 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
- QABUL KHAN Versus SHAH NAWAZ1991 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN Versus SIRAJ DIN1991 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH BHUTTA Versus NIAZ AHMAD1991 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus R.M.S. JANJUA , Khaqan Baber, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record1991 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN Versus AMIR JAN1991 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
- RAHIM GUL Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.1991 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding seniority between two Assistant Professors in the Health Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal correctly determined seniority and whether the service appeal was competent despite the respondent's failure to exhaust departmental remedies under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in its finding on the competency of the appeal. The Court established that the Provincial Government is subordinate to the Governor, and therefore, a representation invoking the Governor's pleasure under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, is a mandatory prerequisite before approaching the Service Tribunal. However, on the merits, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that seniority must be determined grade-wise rather than speciality-wise under the relevant absorption rules, and that experience in a specific speciality like Orthopaedics cannot be substituted for experience in General Surgery for promotion purposes.
Questions settled- Is a representation under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, a mandatory prerequisite before filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Provincial Government act as the final authority for the purpose of departmental representations, or is it subordinate to the Governor?
- Can experience in a specific medical speciality be substituted for experience in General Surgery for promotion purposes?
- Should seniority of civil servants be determined grade-wise or speciality-wise under the Khyber Medical College and Hayat Shaheed Teaching Hospital (Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1976?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus SAHIB KHATOON1991 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the succession to the estate of Alam Khan, specifically regarding the legitimacy of Muzaffar Khan as the son of Rangu and his subsequent entitlement to inherit. The core legal questions were whether a previous judgment from 1916 operated as res judicata in the current proceedings and whether, under Islamic Law, Muzaffar Khan could be legally treated as the son of Rangu and brother of the deceased. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Muzaffar Khan’s heirs, but the District Judge reversed this, citing the 1916 judgment as res judicata. While the High Court initially differed, the Supreme Court held that the previous judgment indeed constituted res judicata, as the issue of Muzaffar Khan’s paternity had been directly and substantially decided by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties or their predecessors. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the principle of res judicata barred the re-litigation of the paternity issue, thereby upholding the findings that Muzaffar Khan was not the legitimate son of Rangu.
Questions settled- Does a previous judgment regarding the paternity of an individual operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation involving the same parties or their successors?
- Can a court re-examine an issue of fact that has been directly and substantially decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a former suit between the same parties?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to succession disputes where the underlying issue of lineage was previously adjudicated?
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN BALOCH Versus EJAZ AHMED1991 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the brother of the deceased against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which acquittal was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below based on doubtful ocular testimony and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the explanation offered by the eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the scene of the occurrence at a late hour was dubious and that the twenty-four-hour delay in reporting the matter remained unexplained. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent orders of acquittal resting on plausible assessments of weak ocular evidence and delayed reporting.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay of twenty-four hours in lodging the First Information Report weaken the prosecution case?
- Is the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence subject to strict scrutiny when the explanation for their presence is dubious?
- SHAUKAT HAYAT Versus THE STATE1991 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously refused leave to appeal against the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record, including misstatements of facts regarding witness testimony, the recovery of evidence, and medical findings. The Court examined each contention against the trial record. It held that while certain typographical errors regarding names were present and required correction, the substantive factual findings were supported by the evidence on record, including witness depositions and post-mortem reports. The Court affirmed that findings based on the testimony of medical experts and prosecution witnesses do not constitute errors apparent on the record. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the arguments presented, as the alleged discrepancies did not prejudice the petitioner or constitute a miscarriage of justice. The review petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that review jurisdiction is restricted to rectifying manifest errors rather than re-evaluating evidence.
Questions settled- Does a typographical error in a judgment constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review?
- Can factual findings based on medical evidence and witness testimony be re-examined in a review petition?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the alleged errors are supported by the evidence on the trial record?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus ALLAH BAKHSH1990 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- FAZAL SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD DIN1990 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus SARDAR BEGUM1990 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the transfer of an evacuee property, House No. HQ355, Rawalpindi. The dispute originated from conflicting claims over the property's transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, involving multiple parties, including the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Ch. Muhammad Nawaz, and the respondent, Mst. Sardar Begum. The core legal questions involve whether the 'informer application' filed by the respondent had lapsed due to the enactment of Ordinance II of 1962, which amended the relevant statutory provisions, and whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the res judicata effect of a prior Supreme Court judgment (PLD 1966 SC 512) concerning the status of Ch. Muhammad Nawaz. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve questions of substantial public importance requiring final determination by the Court. The Court held that the legal status of the informer application and the binding nature of prior judgments on the parties necessitate a definitive ruling by the apex court.
Questions settled- Does an informer application filed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 lapse upon the amendment of Section 10 by Ordinance II of 1962?
- Is a party bound by a prior Supreme Court judgment if they were merely a proper party rather than a necessary party in the earlier proceedings?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by a Settlement Commissioner based on documentary evidence?
- ABDUL MAJID Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LORALAI1990 SCMR 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Constitution Petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of his local residence certificate by the District Magistrate, Loralai. The certificate was initially revoked on the grounds that the petitioner's father owned property in Punjab, voted in Taunsa Sharif, and that the local certificate was obtained through misrepresentation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the factors relied upon by the District Magistrate, holding that the acquisition of property as a matter of convenience is not a valid legal ground for cancellation, especially when such property was ancestral and long-held, and that the authorities failed to properly weigh the continuous intention of the family to remain permanent residents alongside practical considerations regarding scarce educational resources and unutilized quota seats. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the cancellation of the local certificate, while permitting a fresh inquiry if deemed necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the acquisition of immovable property as a matter of convenience constitutes a valid legal ground for the cancellation of a local residence certificate?
- Does the exercise of voting rights in another district negate a person's bona fide local residency status where ancestral property is held?
- Can executive authorities disregard practical considerations regarding unutilized educational quota seats when deciding on the cancellation of local certificates?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR Versus NASIRA SHAHEEN1990 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER Versus SACHAL1990 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing a criminal revision petition against the conviction and sentence of respondent No. 1 under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after the trial court accepted his plea of grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question is whether the courts below erred in accepting the defence plea and relying on hearsay evidence of prosecution witnesses rather than direct eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court held that there is prima facie force in the contention that the evidence relied upon in support of the defence was inadmissible hearsay and could not be preferred over the direct testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses. Consequently, the Court granted leave to consider whether the lower courts accepted the defence plea on sound principles for the safe administration of justice, thereby setting aside the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the courts below erred in accepting a defence plea based on hearsay evidence?
- Can hearsay testimony of police and formal witnesses be preferred over direct eyewitness accounts in a murder trial?
- Whether the conviction under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence led at the trial?
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1990 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1990 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL PESHAWAR1990 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the findings of the Election Tribunal and declared the election of the appellant to the Peshawar Municipal Corporation void, ordering a re-election. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the factual findings of the Election Tribunal and declaring the election void due to severe irregularities and disruption at the polling station. The Supreme Court held that where the polling was interrupted, ballot boxes were taken into custody by the police, and voters were prevented from exercising their right of franchise due to disorder, the High Court's intervention in setting aside the election was legally sound and not open to exception. The key principle laid down is that high courts may interfere with election tribunal findings under constitutional jurisdiction when there are grave violations of election laws and procedures, such as the failure to hold peaceful elections and protect ballot boxes.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can set aside findings of fact arrived at by an Election Tribunal in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the disruption of polling and taking away of ballot boxes by the police justify declaring an election void?
- Whether the failure of the Presiding Officer and Returning Officer to comply with election rules warrants a re-election?
- DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB Versus RASHID AHMAD, FOODGRAINS SUPERVISOR1990 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
- KABIR AHMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1990 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE1990 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1990 SCMR 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED Versus ASGHAR ALI1990 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 4-4-1987, whereby the respondent Asghar Ali's conviction for the murder of his wife was maintained, but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life along with a reduction in fine. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of unknown or concealed motive, while allegedly ignoring that the victim was heavily pregnant with twins who also died as a result of the act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the multiple loss of lives and the propriety of the sentence reduction warranted a detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment back to death, noting the presence of supporting medical evidence and precedent.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the ground of concealed or unknown motive?
- Does the death of unborn twins along with the pregnant mother constitute a relevant factor for the quantum of sentence in a murder trial?
- ABDUR RASHID Versus MUHAMMAD YUSAF1990 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's acquittal of the respondent, who had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of a blacksmith. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appellate judgment, which acquitted the respondent based on a re-appraisal of evidence and a finding that the prosecution's case was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was based on a sound evaluation of the evidence, noting that the prosecution had attempted to bolster its case with uncorroborated motives and an extra-judicial confession not mentioned in the initial report, alongside procedural irregularities by the investigating officer. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with an appellate court's acquittal unless the appraisal of evidence was perverse or in flagrant violation of established legal principles. Finding no such error, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the principle that an appellate court's factual findings, when plausible and not perverse, remain undisturbed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an appellate court's acquittal of an accused?
- Does the failure to record a motive or an extra-judicial confession in the First Information Report undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence when the High Court has already weighed the prosecution and defence versions?
- SHAHIDA Versus ABDUL QAYYUM1990 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition against an acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered Muhammad Saeed, the husband of the petitioner, by shooting him while he slept in his courtyard. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the ocular testimony of the petitioner and her sister unreliable. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that she and her sister were natural witnesses, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the respondents were named therein. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the reliability of the witnesses and the circumstances of the occurrence. Finding that the arguments raised in support of the petition required further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondents. The judgment primarily addresses the threshold for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal where the credibility of ocular testimony is contested.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order?
- Is the prompt lodging of an FIR a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of ocular testimony in a murder case?
- Can the presence of a relative at the scene of a crime be considered sufficient to establish them as a natural witness?
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus STATE1990 SCMR 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
- SUBHANULLAH Versus RAFIA AFZAL1989 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus IJAZ AHMAD1989 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered the deceased due to a dispute involving a Panchayat and illicit relations. The trial court had convicted one respondent, but the High Court acquitted him, finding the eye-witness accounts unreliable and the motive unproven. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal, based on its assessment of evidence, warranted Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the High Court had meticulously examined the evidence, including the credibility of the eye-witnesses and the alleged motive. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, as no substantial question of law regarding the appreciation of evidence was raised, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the evidence?
- Is the failure to produce a key witness who allegedly carried a light source a valid ground for doubting eye-witness testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the motive for the crime is not proven?
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus BOOTA1989 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN Versus STATE1989 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, originating from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Karim Khan, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns whether a retracted judicial confession can form the sole basis for a conviction, and whether the appellant's actions fell within the exception of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that a retracted confession, once established to be voluntary and true, requires no corroboration and can legally sustain a conviction. However, reading the confession as a whole, the Court found that the murder was committed under grave and sudden provocation after the deceased persistently attempted to force sodomy upon the appellant, thus altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that a voluntary and true retracted confession is legally sufficient for a conviction, and persistent attempts at unnatural assault can constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
- Does the retraction of a confession affect whether it was voluntarily made and true?
- Does persistent attempted sodomy constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- SHAMS DIN Versus JALAL DIN1989 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ALI Versus DEWAN JIRAM DAS1989 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAMIDUDDIN Versus FEROZ AHMED1989 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition regarding a land consolidation scheme. The dispute arose after the Collector confirmed a consolidation scheme, which was subsequently remanded by the Additional Commissioner. Following the remand, the Collector allotted specific Khasra numbers to the respondents. The petitioners challenged these proceedings, alleging they were not parties to the initial remand order and that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners had participated in the remand proceedings before the Collector and failed to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that by participating in the remand proceedings before the Collector, the petitioners effectively waived their objections regarding the initial remand order, and that the failure to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue precluded them from raising these issues in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does participation in remand proceedings before a Collector constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the initial remand order?
- Can a petitioner challenge an order of an Additional Commissioner in a writ petition if they failed to challenge that order before the Board of Revenue?
- Is a party entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction if they have participated in the proceedings they subsequently seek to challenge?
- ENGINCCRING-IN-CHIEF BRANCH Versus JALALUDDIN1989 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD Versus STATE1989 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1908-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from Criminal Appeal No.7(S) of 1987 and Jail Petition No.22-R(S) of 1987 directed against the Federal Shariat Court judgment dated 19-2-1987, concerning convictions for Zina-bil-Jabr and abduction. The core legal question was whether the actions of the principal accused constituted abduction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 or merely taking or enticing a woman under Section 16 thereof, given that he had deceived passersby by posing as a police constable taking the victim to a police station. The Supreme Court held that the accused committed an offence under Section 16 rather than Section 11 because the victim was taken away through deceit rather than kidnapping or abduction as contemplated under Section 11. The key principle laid down is that where a person takes a woman away under the false pretext of official police action, the act falls within the purview of Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 rather than Section 11.
Questions settled- Whether taking a woman away under the false pretext of police action constitutes abduction under Section 11 or enticement under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 apply when a victim is deceived into accompanying an accused who falsely claims to be a police constable?
- When can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 11 to Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- NIZAM DIN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA1989 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the validity of an allotment of land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether a formal order of transfer is required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another when both estates fall within the same Patwar Circle. The appellant argued, based on a prior administrative judgment, that no such formal transfer order was necessary. The High Court had rejected this, holding that the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme mandates specific procedures for such transfers, and that the administrative judgment relied upon by the appellant lacked the force of statutory instructions. The Supreme Court, relying on its recent precedent in Feroze Khan v. Ali Haider (1987 SCMR 197), affirmed the High Court's decision. It held that the instructions in the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme regarding the transfer of units are mandatory and cannot be overridden by administrative interpretations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an allotment obtained without the requisite formal transfer order is invalid and fraudulent.
Questions settled- Is a formal order of transfer required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another within the same Patwar Circle under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Does an administrative judgment by a Rehabilitation Commissioner have the force of statutory instructions to override the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can an allotment of land be considered fraudulently obtained if the required transfer of units between estates was not formally ordered?
- NEK MUHAMMAD Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1989 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three civil appeals arose from an order of the High Court refusing to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against an Additional Settlement Commissioner's order cancelling land allotments. The appellants, claiming as sole surviving heirs of verified refugee claimants, had their temporary allotments adjusted against those claims. The authorities below cancelled the allotments holding them fraudulent and lacking proof of succession. The core legal question was whether material evidence regarding inheritance and pedigree tables had been ignored by the Settlement authorities, and whether the High Court erred in refusing constitutional intervention. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to consider crucial material evidence, including pedigree tables from records received from India and connecting oral evidence. The appeals were allowed, the impugned decisions set aside, and the case remitted for fresh consideration in light of established precedent regarding settlement claims and successor allotments.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse constitutional jurisdiction when material evidence has been ignored by a Settlement Commissioner?
- Does the Rehabilitation Scheme contemplate an allotment in favour of a deceased right-holder?
- Are successors entitled to allotments of land based on verified claims of deceased refugees upon establishing their pedigree?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus ZAKI AHMAD SIDDIQI1989 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus STATE1989 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction under the narcotics laws. The petitioner, Muhammad Habib, was convicted by the trial court for possessing charas and heroin, receiving a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and a fine. The Federal Shariat Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the arrest, specifically the police's failure to apprehend the petitioner's alleged accomplice, Rehmatullah, who was implicated in the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was sound, the petitioner was entitled to further leniency because the police acted unfairly by allowing the co-accused to escape while shifting the entire culpability onto the petitioner. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and further reduced the substantive sentence from three years to two years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the other penalties. The judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should reflect the fairness of the investigation and the totality of the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence on appeal if the police investigation is found to be unfair regarding the treatment of co-accused?
- Is a sentence of rigorous imprisonment subject to reduction if the prosecution fails to apprehend all implicated parties?
- BAKHAT BAIDAR Versus STATE1989 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HALEEM Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN1989 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD., BHALWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI1989 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
- TAHIR MAHMOOD Versus ZAINAB KHATOON1989 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID KHALID Versus PROVINCE OF SIND1989 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MOBASHIR AHMAOL1989 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- KHAN BAHADUR Versus STATE1989 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR1989 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-28Read full judgment →
- MIR AKBAR Versus STATE1989 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →