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.

• ALLAH DITTA Versus GHULAM HAIDER1988 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
• NAJMUDDIN Versus ANIS FATIMA1988 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  tentative rent orderdefault in rentadjustment of rentejectment applicationstrike off defenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant of a plot in Karachi, had deposited monthly rent in a miscellaneous rent case from September 1978 onwards. Subsequently, the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application on the ground of default, leading the Rent Controller to pass a tentative rent deposit order for arrears. The petitioner sought adjustment of the amounts already deposited or permission to transfer/withdraw and redeposit the same, but the Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence for non-compliance with the tentative order. The High Court dismissed the tenant's first rent appeal. The core legal question concerned whether an existing rent deposit in court can be adjusted or transferred towards a tentative rent order in subsequent ejectment proceedings to avoid a default finding. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of requiring a tenant to redeposit rent already lying in court, noting that leave was granted on similar points in connected petitions, and ordered that the status quo continue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rent already deposited in court in separate proceedings can be adjusted towards a tentative rent order in subsequent ejectment proceedings?
  • Does a failure to redeposit rent that is already lying in court justify striking off the tenant's defence for default?
  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter when the rent amount is already available in court record?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUMTAZ AHMAD1988 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  leave to appealdouble murderacquittalinterested witnesschance witnessmiscarriage of justicere-examination of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted respondents Mumtaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad (since deceased) in a double murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered Bhola and his son, Mahabat, following a dispute over lease money for agricultural land. The trial court had convicted the respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death. However, the High Court Division Bench overturned this conviction, characterizing the prosecution's eye-witnesses as interested and chance witnesses, noting improbabilities in the case, and finding the incriminating recoveries unreliable. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's assessment of the evidence warranted re-examination to ensure that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to scrutinize the evidentiary findings of the High Court and issued warrants for the respondents' arrest to ensure their appearance before the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment by the High Court if there is a potential miscarriage of justice?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of eye-witnesses if they are classified as interested and chance witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADBAIG Versus MUHAMMAD MANSHA1988 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  leave to appealculpable homicidemurderundue advantagecruel and unusual mannerexception IV to Section 300
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially allowed an appeal by the accused, modifying their conviction from Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder) to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The complainant challenged this modification, arguing that the High Court erred in applying Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the accused took undue advantage of the victims and acted in a cruel and unusual manner, specifically noting that the accused used knives against unarmed victims and inflicted multiple injuries, thereby disqualifying them from the benefit of the exception. The Supreme Court found the matter fit for examination, specifically to determine whether the conditions for Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were satisfied to justify the lesser conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the application of these legal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of knives against unarmed victims constitute taking 'undue advantage' under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Do the nature, number, and location of injuries inflicted on a victim indicate a 'cruel and unusual manner' for the purposes of Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances does the application of Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fail to justify a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL ZAMAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-28
  appeal against acquittalre-appraisal of evidenceocular evidencecorroborationinjured witnessmisreading of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the State appeal against the acquittal of the appellants was accepted, and they were convicted under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of ocular evidence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were unexceptionable as the occurrence took place in broad daylight with a prompt F.I.R., the injured eyewitness's presence was undisputed, and his testimony was fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of empty cartridges. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where an acquittal order is based on a misreading of evidence and non-application of mind by the trial court, the appellate court is fully justified in reversing the findings and convicting the accused when the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in reversing an order of acquittal when the trial court has misread the evidence?
  • Does the testimony of an injured eyewitness require further corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a trial court in a criminal case?
  • Whether prompt lodging of an F.I.R. and lack of enmity exclude the possibility of mistaken identity of the assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus SALEEM AKHTAR1988 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  leave to appealacquittalocular testimonyappreciation of evidencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant against the acquittal of the respondents, Salim Akhtar and Muhammad Rashid, for the murder of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically the ocular testimony, which led to the acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court had properly reviewed the evidence and identified significant improbabilities. These included the absence of blood on the alleged eyewitness's clothes despite claims of handling the injured victim, the failure to secure blood from the scene, and the suspicious delay in producing the second eyewitness. The Court held that where the High Court has properly evaluated the evidence and found it insufficient to prove the charge of murder, there is no ground for the Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal based on a sound, reasoned evaluation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has properly reviewed and rejected the evidence?
  • Is the absence of blood on the clothes of an alleged eyewitness a valid ground for doubting their presence at the scene of a crime?
  • Can an appellate court reappraise evidence when the trial or lower appellate court has already provided a sound analysis of its unreliability?
  Read full judgment →
• IHSANUDDIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27
  criminal appealmurdermitigating circumstancesdeath sentencegrave and sudden provocationreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon leave granted to consider whether any mitigating circumstance existed for the reduction of the sentence of the appellant from death to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question involved the determination of whether sudden provocation or previous altercations justified commuting the death sentence. The court held that the appellant was guilty of wanton behavior, acted in malice by firing upon an unarmed deceased, and that the provocation was entirely one-sided without any offensive reaction from the deceased or his companions. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to reduce the sentence, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether previous altercations and a verbal taunt constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
  • Does a one-sided provocation without offensive reaction from the deceased justify the reduction of a death sentence?
  • When is an accused considered to have acted in malice disentitling them to leniency in sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• RUKAN ZAMAN Versus KHIZAR HAYAT1988 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  judicial confessionacquittalmedical evidencecriminal appealevidentiary valuemurdercorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, Khizar Hayat, by the Lahore High Court regarding a murder charge. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent based on a judicial confession and the recovery of a weapon. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s acquittal was legally sound, specifically scrutinizing the evidentiary value of the judicial confession. The Court found that the confession was unreliable as it was inconsistent with the medical evidence; specifically, the confessional statement claimed the shot was fired from behind, whereas the medical report indicated the shot was fired from the front. Furthermore, the confession failed to explain an incised wound found on the deceased and offered a motive entirely different from the prosecution's theory of election-related enmity. Consequently, the Court held that the confession was exculpatory in nature and inconsistent with the prosecution's case. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's acquittal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a judicial confession contradicted by medical evidence cannot form the basis for a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession be relied upon if it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the manner of the crime?
  • Does a judicial confession that is inconsistent with the prosecution's theory of the case carry sufficient evidentiary weight for conviction?
  • Is a judicial confession that fails to explain injuries on the deceased reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1988 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-09
  murderself-defencesudden fightcriminal trespassappreciation of evidencecommon intentiondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder and other offences arising from a violent clash between two related families resulting in four deaths and multiple injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants acted in exercise of the right of private defence of property and person or whether the incident constituted a sudden fight warranting a lesser charge under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing that the appellants acted with immense cruelty by trespassing and killing four empty-handed persons, including two women, while failing to satisfactorily explain the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting the plea of self-defence. The key principle laid down is that a plea of self-defence or sudden fight cannot be sustained where the accused commit unprovoked aggression, inflict fatal injuries on unarmed persons including women, and fail to account for the injuries sustained by the victims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of private defence can be successfully invoked by accused persons who initiate an unprovoked attack and inflict fatal injuries on unarmed victims?
  • Does a dispute over property and the blocking of a doorway constitute a sudden fight sufficient to reduce a charge of murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court regarding the rejection of a self-defence plea be interfered with when supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27
  criminal appealocular testimonyreliability of witnessescapital chargecross-firingfalse implicationcorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment upholding the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony when the prosecution witnesses have been found to have falsely implicated other co-accused in the same incident. The Supreme Court held that the convictions could not be sustained. The Court observed that the trial and High Courts had acquitted eight out of twelve accused, indicating the eye-witnesses were not entirely reliable. The Court found the prosecution's narrative inconsistent with physical evidence, noting that medical reports showed close-range firing, contradicting the witnesses' claims of long-range firing, and that the presence of two firing positions suggested a cross-firing scenario rather than a unilateral attack. The Court established that when ocular testimony is found to be unreliable regarding a significant portion of the accused, it cannot form the basis for a capital conviction without independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that specific role attribution alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction where the underlying testimony is fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the witnesses have been found to have falsely implicated other co-accused?
  • Does the attribution of specific roles to certain accused persons provide a sufficient basis to sustain convictions when the eye-witnesses are otherwise found unreliable?
  • Is medical evidence regarding the distance of firing a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• GULZAR KHAN Versus MIAN KHANG1988 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus STATE1988 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20
  murderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceinterested witnesssubstitution of accusedmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder, was heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and the plausible defense version of substitution. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was shrouded in mystery, the eyewitnesses were either interested or contradicted by medical evidence, and the defense evidence of substitution created a strong benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to present clear and straightforward evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can the conviction of appellants be sustained when the core ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence regarding the distance of firing?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when co-accused facing identical allegations are acquitted based on a defense version of substitution?
  Read full judgment →
• ROZI MUHAMMAD Versus GUL MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• KHALID AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ ALI KHANZADA Versus STATE1988 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02Read full judgment →
• RASHID AHMAD Versus UNITED BANK LTD1988 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ GHUMAN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD1988 SCMR 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• ORGANIZATION OF KARACHI PORT TRUST WORKERS Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI1988 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-19
  workmanindustrial disputetrade unionwatch and ward staffconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the Industrial Court's refusal to adjudicate industrial disputes raised by the appellant trade union on behalf of Chowkidars and Havildars employed by the Karachi Port Trust. The core legal question was whether these Watch and Ward employees qualified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal based on concessions and the legislative context, holding that the employees were workmen entitled to seek adjudication of their service demands. The key principle established is that statutory definitions of workmen must be interpreted in light of their letter, spirit, and subsequent clarifying legislative enactments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Chowkidars and Havildars employed in the Watch and Ward Department of the Karachi Port Trust qualify as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with an Industrial Court's erroneous determination regarding the status of a workman under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN1988 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20
  ejectmentcompromisecounsel authoritywithdrawal of appealrent controllerconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against an appellate order of the District Judge, Sialkot. The petitioners, who were subject to an ejectment order by the Rent Controller, had appealed to the District Judge. Their counsel subsequently informed the District Judge that a compromise had been reached, requesting the withdrawal of the appeal and a six-month period to vacate the premises, which the District Judge granted. The petitioners later challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the District Judge should have conducted an inquiry to verify the compromise before allowing the withdrawal, despite not disputing the authority of their counsel. The Supreme Court held that the counsel's withdrawal of the appeal was not unauthorized and dismissed the petition. The Court affirmed that a counsel's statement regarding a compromise is binding on the client, and the court is not required to conduct an independent inquiry into the validity of the compromise when presented by authorized legal counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Is a compromise entered into by a counsel on behalf of their client binding on the client?
  • Is a court required to hold an independent inquiry into a compromise presented by a counsel before allowing the withdrawal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1988 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27
  departmental inquirypolice misconductillegal gratificationservice tribunalleave to appealdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal filed by former police constables challenging an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld their removal from service following a departmental inquiry. The petitioners were found guilty of corruption and misconduct under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, after they allegedly assaulted citizens and demanded illegal gratification during an investigation. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and the subsequent removal from service were legally justified and factually supported. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the procedural history, noting that the petitioners had been served with charge-sheets, provided with a summary of allegations, and granted full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense during the inquiry. Finding that the Inquiry Officer had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded the petitioners' explanations were unsatisfactory, the Court held that no grounds existed for judicial interference with the findings of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitions, reinforcing the principle that departmental findings supported by due process and evidence are generally not subject to appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of a Service Tribunal where the departmental inquiry followed due process?
  • Is a departmental inquiry report based on evidence and opportunity for defense sufficient to uphold the removal of a police officer?
  Read full judgment →
• AKMAL MASIH Versus SALAMAT MASIH1988 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
• JEHANDAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  sudden fightsudden quarrelculpable homicidemurderexception 4undue advantagereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellants' conviction under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their death sentences to imprisonment for life. The incident arose from a dispute over the demolition of a common boundary (Bunna) between agricultural lands, resulting in a sudden quarrel, mutual altercation, and a fight causing deaths and injuries. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the application of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically whether the occurrence constituted a case for altering the conviction to section 304, Part I. The Supreme Court held that unless all conditions of Exception 4 are satisfied—specifically regarding undue advantage and cruel or unusual manner—the conviction cannot be altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, notwithstanding the absence of premeditation. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's conclusion that the appellants acted in a cruel manner and took undue advantage, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and reduced sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to section 304, Part I, when an occurrence arises out of a sudden fight without premeditation but the accused takes undue advantage or acts in a cruel manner?
  • Is it material under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as to which party offers provocation or commits the first assault in a case of sudden quarrel?
  • Whether the High Court's finding that the accused acted in a cruel and unusual manner precludes the application of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAFEY ALI Versus ASRAR BEG1988 SCMR 913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-19
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencealteration of convictionculpable homicideintention to killacquittalcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of one respondent and the alteration of conviction and sentence of another respondent by the High Court. The respondents, a father and son, were originally tried for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the son but acquitted the father. On appeal, the High Court altered the son's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing a lack of intention to kill as the blows were struck on non-vital parts, despite the fatal injury to the iliac artery. The petitioner sought enhancement of the son's sentence and challenged the father's acquittal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely regarding the son's conviction and sentence, finding merit in the argument regarding the force and nature of the injury, while dismissing the petition concerning the father's acquittal. The Court did not disturb the acquittal of the father, effectively limiting the scope of the upcoming appeal to the son's culpability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in altering a conviction from murder to culpable homicide when the fatal injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body?
  • Does the infliction of a fatal injury on a non-vital part of the body necessarily negate the intention to kill under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted in part while being dismissed in respect of other co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus STATE1988 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
• STANDARD PRINTING PRESS Versus SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION1988 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02
  conditional legislationsocial securityultra viresequal protection of lawtribunal jurisdictionstatutory interpretationadministrative notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to an individual printing press. The appellant challenged a government notification issued under Section 1(3) of the Ordinance, arguing it was ultra vires for targeting an individual establishment rather than a class, and violated Article 25 of the Constitution regarding equality. The core legal questions were whether the government could apply the Ordinance to individual establishments and whether the Social Security Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the vires of the notification or the statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 1(3) permits the application of the Ordinance to individual establishments. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Social Security Court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, restricted to matters under Section 57, and cannot adjudicate constitutional challenges to the vires of the statute or notifications. The Court established that constitutional challenges require the government to be a party and that the appellate mechanism under the Ordinance cannot be expanded to include issues outside the original tribunal's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 authorize the government to apply the Ordinance to an individual establishment?
  • Does the Social Security Court have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the constitutional validity of a notification issued under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Can an appellate court under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 entertain questions of law that were outside the jurisdiction of the original Social Security Court?
  • Is the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus STATE1988 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  leave to appealmurdermitigating circumstancessentence reductionprovocationdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reduced the respondent's sentence for murder from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal question is whether mutual exchange of abuses between the accused and the deceased prior to the fatal attack constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance to justify reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that there is weight in the petitioner's contention that a murderer should not escape the major penalty simply by provoking the victim into a verbal altercation. The key principle laid down is that minor verbal provocation or mutual exchange of abuses, in the absence of grave and sudden provocation leading to loss of self-control, may not automatically constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutual exchange of abuses between the accused and the deceased constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a court treat minor verbal provocation as a valid ground to avoid awarding the death penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAHIM Versus RIAZ AHMAD1988 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencemitigating circumstancesmurdercriminal justicedeath penaltylegal insanity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the respondent's conviction for murder and murderous assault but commuted his death sentences to life imprisonment. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court for the murders of his father-in-law and brother-in-law, and for a murderous assault on his mother-in-law, following a dispute over his wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home. The High Court reduced the sentence, citing the respondent's frustration over his failed attempts to reconcile with his wife as a mitigating circumstance, despite finding that the respondent did not suffer from legal insanity. The petitioner seeks the restoration of the death penalty, arguing that the respondent's annoyance over domestic issues does not constitute a valid mitigating factor for such grave offenses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court's reasoning for altering the sentence was legally proper and consistent with established principles of criminal justice administration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether frustration arising from a domestic dispute constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence in a murder case?
  • Does the absence of legal insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude a court from considering other factors in sentencing?
  • Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an appellate court to alter a death sentence to life imprisonment in cases of double murder?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUR REHMAN Versus TAJ DIN1988 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21
  leave to appealacquittalocular testimonydefence versioncriminal justiceappreciation of evidencepartisan witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondents were initially convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Ghulam Sabir and causing injuries to Mst. Jamila, but the High Court acquitted them, finding the prosecution's ocular testimony partisan and preferring the defence's version of events. The defence contended that the complainant party initiated the conflict and that the injuries sustained by the victims occurred during retaliation. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's reliance on the defence version, arguing that the testimony of a police officer regarding a third party's involvement was inconsistent and an afterthought. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of safe administration of criminal justice in accepting the defence's version as more probable than the prosecution's case. The Court issued warrants of arrest for the respondents pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appellate court is justified in preferring the defence version over the prosecution version when ocular testimony is found to be partisan?
  • Does the failure of the police to arrest a suspect mentioned in the defence version render that version an afterthought?
  • What are the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice when evaluating conflicting versions of an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUJEEB-UR-RAHMAN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10Read full judgment →
• JAMILA LATEEF Versus SALIM AHMAD KHAN1988 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-04Read full judgment →
• BASEER AHMAD SIDDIQUI Versus SHAMA AFROZ1988 SCMR 892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-11
  specific performancecondonation of delaymemorandum of appealdecree sheetbreach of contractsale agreementcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the specific performance of a land sale agreement. The petitioner revoked the agreement, alleging the respondent failed to perform, while the respondent sued for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it in the respondent's favor. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision, arguing the appeal was incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the decree as required by Order XLI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the requirement to attach a decree is strictly mandatory or directory. Instead, the Court held that the circumstances—specifically that the decree was not prepared when the appeal was filed and the record was subsequently called for by the appellate court—justified the condonation of delay in filing the decree. On merits, the Court found the petitioner failed to prove he provided written notice of the lease acquisition, thus invalidating the revocation of the agreement. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to attach a copy of the decree to a memorandum of appeal necessarily render the appeal incompetent?
  • Can delay in filing a copy of the decree be condoned when the decree was not prepared at the time the appeal was filed?
  • Is a vendor justified in revoking a sale agreement based on an oral assertion of the purchaser's default without written notice?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAZAEH POOYA Versus MRS.MUBARAK SHAH1988 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• SAEEDA BEGUM Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA CAMP LYALLPUR1988 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertydisplaced personspermanent transfer deedsettlement lawsprior possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which had accepted a writ petition against orders of the Settlement authorities regarding the transfer of a composite evacuee property in Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the division and transfer of the property in possession of the appellant, and whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the respondents barred the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the initial allotment and transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner violated the mandatory provisions of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which requires that a house or portion thereof be transferred to the claimant displaced person in prior possession. The Court ruled that a P.T.D. issued while litigation regarding entitlement is still pending does not vest indefeasible rights, nor can it validate an order that is void ab initio. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's order set aside, and the Settlement Commissioner's order restored. The key principle laid down is that a claimant displaced person in prior possession of a residential portion is statutorily entitled to its transfer, and the issuance of a P.T.D. during pending litigation or based on a void order cannot override this entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claimant displaced person in prior possession of a portion of an evacuee property is entitled to its transfer under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) bar the re-opening of a case when litigation concerning the entitlement of the property is still pending?
  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) stand if it is based on an order that is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-30
  personal requirementevictionremand orderscope of remandlandlord and tenantbona fide needrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction application filed by the appellants against their tenant under the Sind Urban Rented Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction, but the High Court remanded the case to determine whether specific tenements had fallen vacant during the proceedings, which might negate the landlord's claim of bona fide need. Upon remand, the Rent Controller found the evidence insufficient to prove the vacancy of the specified tenements and reaffirmed the eviction order, noting that the available accommodation was inadequate for the landlord's family. The High Court subsequently reversed this, citing the landlord's failure to account for an additional flat. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred by considering evidence regarding a flat outside the scope of the specific remand order. The Court reaffirmed the principle that proceedings following a remand order must be strictly confined to the directions and scope defined by that order, and that a party cannot seek to reopen issues settled or excluded by the remand mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings pursuant to an order of remand strictly regulated by the directions contained in the remand order?
  • Can a High Court, in a post-remand appeal, consider evidence regarding premises that were outside the specific scope of the remand order?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to explain the status of accommodation not specified in a remand order invalidate a plea of personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKAT Versus RAHIM BAKHSH1988 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02
  adverse possessionconcurrent findingsleave to appealcivil matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil matter concerning a claim of ownership over land based on adverse possession. The core legal question is whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting the plea of adverse possession extending over one hundred years suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the High Court and this Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding claims of adverse possession will not be interfered with by the superior courts unless a clear legal or factual infirmity is shown in the lower courts' judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding adverse possession can be interfered with without showing any legal infirmity?
  • Does a claim of adverse possession extending over one hundred years automatically establish ownership without proving the required legal elements?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1988 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-28
  pre-emption suitcourt fee deficiencyrejection of plaintprocedural fairnessCode of Civil Procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court dismissed the plaint due to insufficient court fees and limitation issues. The core legal question was whether a trial court is empowered to summarily reject a plaint for insufficient court fees without first assessing the exact deficiency and granting the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the shortfall. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had set aside the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The Court held that the trial court failed to perform its mandatory duty of quantifying the precise court fee deficiency and providing the plaintiff a specific opportunity to pay the balance. The ratio established is that a court cannot invoke the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reject a plaint for insufficient court fees without first determining the exact amount due and affording the plaintiff a fair opportunity to make up the deficiency. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the necessity of procedural fairness in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court reject a plaint for insufficient court fees without first assessing the exact deficiency?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to grant an opportunity to make up a court fee deficiency before rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the destruction of a court record absolve the trial court of its duty to assess court fee deficiencies?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) KARACHI1988 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-01-21
  income taxtrading receiptunclaimed balancerefundable depositcessation of liabilityaccounting practicetaxable income
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the taxability of unclaimed balances arising from unutilized airline tickets. The core legal question was whether payments received for unutilized tickets, initially recorded as liabilities, constitute taxable trading receipts upon being transferred to a Profit and Loss Appropriation Account after three years. The Supreme Court held that the character of a receipt is determined at the time of its initial receipt. Since the airline held the ticket proceeds as a refundable liability to passengers, they were not trading receipts at the point of origin. The Court established that a receipt’s nature cannot be retroactively altered by subsequent accounting entries or the passage of time. Furthermore, under the unamended Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the mere transfer of a liability to an appropriation account does not constitute a cessation of liability or taxable income, provided the underlying obligation to the customer remains legally extant. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the character of a receipt for income tax purposes become fixed at the time of its initial receipt?
  • Can a refundable deposit be converted into a taxable trading receipt solely through a subsequent accounting transfer?
  • Does the transfer of an unclaimed liability to a Profit and Loss Appropriation Account constitute taxable income under the unamended Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• KHALID HUSSAIN SHAH Versus SUBA1988 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• SIDDIQ Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , EAST KARACHI1988 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationcomparable salespotential of landcompulsory acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants challenged the market value assessment, arguing that the High Court erred by relying on a single sale transaction near the date of acquisition rather than other instances, and by failing to account for the land's potential. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, had correctly identified that the appellants failed to provide evidence regarding the land's potential or special advantages. Consequently, the Court held that the failure of the lower authorities to discuss the land's potential did not vitiate the assessment order, as the burden of proof rested on the claimants to establish such features. The Court affirmed that the High Court’s reliance on a comparable sale transaction occurring shortly after the acquisition notification was a fair and reasonable basis for determining market value in the absence of more suitable evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the compensation awarded by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the market value of acquired land based on a single comparable sale transaction occurring near the date of acquisition?
  • Does the failure of a court to discuss the 'potential' of acquired land vitiate an assessment order if the claimants failed to lead evidence on that issue?
  • Is it legally permissible to rely on a sale transaction that occurred shortly after the issuance of a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine market value?
  Read full judgment →
• JAMIL HUSSAIN SHAH Versus SAJJAD JAVID1988 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  leave to appealenhancement of sentenceimprisonment for lifemurdermitigating circumstancesyouthful offendercriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a twenty-two-year-old man was upheld, but his sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life. The petitioner-complainant sought enhancement of the sentence back to death, arguing that the High Court erred in relying on factors such as the respondent's youthful age of sixteen years at the time of the occurrence, previous criminal cases involving the parties, and an alleged suppression of the origin of the quarrel. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the grounds on which the lesser penalty was awarded by the High Court were sufficient in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of these mitigating factors for awarding the lesser sentence. The legal principle established is that leave to appeal may be granted to scrutinize whether youth and antecedent disputes constitute adequate grounds for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life in a calculated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the young age of an accused at the time of the occurrence is a sufficient ground for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the suppression of the origin of a quarrel by prosecution witnesses justifies the award of a lesser penalty in a murder case?
  • Whether previous police involvement and reporting by the deceased provide mitigating circumstances against the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1988 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-01
  murdercompromiseextenuating circumstancereduction of sentencedeath penaltyimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners for murder and house trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise between closely related parties can serve as an extenuating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a genuine compromise conducive to peaceful coexistence constitutes an extenuating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that an out-of-court compromise between parties who are closely related can be considered by the court as a mitigating factor in sentencing for capital offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can an out-of-court compromise between related parties be considered an extenuating circumstance to reduce a death sentence?
  • Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted for counting under-trial custody towards the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-29
  leave to appealself-defenceunexplained injuriesocular testimonyconflicting versionscriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under section 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala. The prosecution case involved the murder of two brothers and injuries to another resulting from a land dispute, with the prosecution relying on ocular testimony. The petitioners contended that there were two conflicting versions of the incident, that one of the petitioners sustained grievous injuries which the prosecution failed to explain in the first information report, and that they acted in exercise of the right of self-defence. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of conflicting versions and the evaluation of uncorroborated ocular testimony in criminal cases involving mutual versions and unexplained injuries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the defence version was properly appraised in accordance with the established principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the defence version of self-defence was properly appraised in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice?
  • Can uncorroborated ocular testimony be relied upon when the trial court has already disbelieved it in respect of a co-accused?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by an accused person during the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ LATIF Versus SARFRAZ MASIH1988 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  sudden fightculpable homicideenhancement of sentenceright of self-defenceundue advantagecrueltycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal sought the enhancement of sentences imposed on the respondents, who were initially convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The Lahore High Court had previously altered the conviction to Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing their sentences to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, citing a sudden fight. The petitioner contended that the High Court failed to adequately consider whether the respondents had acted in a cruel manner or taken undue advantage during the altercation, which would preclude the application of the sudden fight exception. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent had sustained serious head injuries during the incident, indicating that the accused party did not act with undue advantage or cruelty. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's assessment of the circumstances was correct. The petition was dismissed, affirming that where the accused sustains significant injuries during a sudden fight, the claim of undue advantage or cruelty is generally negated, justifying the application of Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sustaining of serious injuries by the accused during a fight negate the claim of undue advantage or cruelty?
  • Under what circumstances can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the appellate court required to interfere with a sentence reduction if the accused did not act in a cruel manner during a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• INAHMUD AHMAD ALIAS MOONDA Versus STATE1988 SCMR 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-27Read full judgment →
• MURID FATIMA Versus MUBARAK HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-27
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestdelayed FIRcriminal conspiracypetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents in a murder case. The petitioner, mother-in-law of the deceased, lodged a delayed First Information Report alleging murder after the parents of the deceased had already stated they suspected no foul play following the sudden death. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting pre-arrest bail in light of delayed reporting, previous litigation, and political rivalry between local actors. The Supreme Court held that no interference with the High Court's order was warranted, thereby dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case stems from belated allegations amidst prior litigation and political rivalry, the grant of pre-arrest bail by the High Court remains sound and unassailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is lodged after a considerable delay and the parents of the deceased suspect no foul play?
  • Does pending civil and criminal litigation between parties constitute a valid ground supporting the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is political rivalry between local figures a relevant consideration in assessing the mala fides of a criminal case for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1988 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18
  land acquisitionwaqf propertyreligious placeleave to appealhousing scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the acquisition of land comprising Khasras functioning as an Imambara site by the Lahore Improvement Trust, now the Lahore Development Authority, under the Land Acquisition Act for the Allama Iqbal Township housing scheme. The core legal question is whether religious and waqf properties, specifically an Imambara site, are exempt from compulsory acquisition under administrative instructions contained in Board of Revenue Standing Order No. 28. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the binding nature and applicability of the instructions against compulsory acquisition of religious places requires consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the appeal be made ready for early hearing with permission to file additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can land comprising a religious place or waqf property be acquired compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Act in view of Board of Revenue Standing Order No. 28?
  • Whether administrative instructions contained in a Standing Order bar the acquisition of property attached to a religious institution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus INAYAT ALI1988 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  criminal appealacquittalself-defenseappreciation of evidencemurderbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court, which set aside his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and preferring the version of the occurrence presented by the accused, which was supported by medical evidence and established that the accused acted in self-defense after being assaulted. The Supreme Court held that where two competing versions of an occurrence are plausible, the appellate court correctly applies the principle that the version more favorable to the accused is to be preferred, and the apex court will not interfere with such an appreciation of evidence or reappraise the same simply because another view is possible. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases where both the prosecution and defense versions are plausible, the version favoring the accused must prevail on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in preferring the defense version over the prosecution version when both are plausible?
  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to interfere with an acquittal order where the High Court has accepted a version favorable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• JAMSHAID BEG Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1988 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24
  insanityschizophreniaburden of proofmurdermental disorderexpert evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent for murder and murderous assault, directing his detention in a mental hospital under Section 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of insanity. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully discharged the onus of proving legal insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the time of the commission of the offence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellate court rightly relied on medical evidence and expert testimony showing the respondent suffered from schizophrenia and was undergoing psychiatric treatment immediately before the occurrence, establishing a preponderance of probabilities that he acted under a fit of insanity. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings of fact regarding mental incapacity based on expert evidence will not be interfered with where properly evaluated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can set aside a murder conviction on the ground of insanity based on expert psychiatric testimony?
  • Has an accused successfully discharged the onus of proving insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when continuous psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia is established?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's acquittal based on the preponderance of probabilities regarding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus FALAK SHER1988 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review petitioncivil appealsfactual error apparent on recordnew pleaSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves five review petitions directed against a common judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from connected civil appeals. The core legal question addressed is whether grounds for review are established based on alleged factual errors and omitted documents in the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court held that the review petitions are without merit, observing that the alleged document relied upon by the petitioners was not traceable on the record nor tendered in evidence below, and that the petitioners were attempting to set up a new factual case not pleaded in the lower courts, which is impermissible in review. The key principle laid down is that review proceedings cannot be utilized to re-argue appeals afresh or to introduce new factual pleas and untraceable documents not previously part of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce a new factual case or plea for the first time in review proceedings?
  • Whether review proceedings can be used to re-argue appeals afresh?
  • Is a review petition maintainable based on a document that is not traceable on the record and was not tendered in evidence before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAUKAT NAWAZ Versus MANSAB DAD1988 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-10
  pre-emptionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factco-sharerexchange of landcompromise deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption matter. The appellant had pre-empted a land transaction comprising an exchange (mutation No. 377) and a sale (mutation No. 396), alleging the exchange was a sham to defeat his pre-emption right, a stance supported by a compromise deed filed by the appellant and the vendor after evidence concluded. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, but the High Court accepted the vendee's revision and dismissed the suit, holding that the vendee had become a co-sharer. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is justified in interfering under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the lower courts committed material irregularity or omitted evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is justified to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below?
  • Can a compromise deed filed between the pre-emptor and the vendor after the close of evidence override clear documentary and oral evidence regarding an exchange of land?
  • Does a vendee who acquires a share through an exchange improve their status to become a co-sharer and defeat a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• GULZAR HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD DILAWAR-1988 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
• ALAM SHER Versus STATE1988 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-09
  murderself-defenceocular evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment upholding the appellants' conviction and sentences under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased, Ismail, due to prior enmity, with one appellant stabbing him and another acting in concert. The appellants denied the charges, with one appellant asserting a plea of self-defence, claiming he acted after the deceased fired at him. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including ocular testimony and the recovery of a blood-stained knife. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that the defence version was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the physical circumstances of the incident. Specifically, the Court found the self-defence plea implausible given the nature of the injuries and the mechanics of the attack. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the appellants' guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when it is contradicted by the medical evidence and the physical circumstances of the crime?
  • Is the appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal where the trial court and the High Court have concurrently appreciated the evidence and found no merit in the defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFSAR Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-10
  pre-emptionconsent decreecollusionTarbela Dam evicteeres judicatacivil revisionremandjudgment in personam
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption over land sold by the vendor. The appellants contended that the sale was actually in favor of a third party, a Tarbela Dam evictee exempt from pre-emption, relying on a consent decree obtained between the vendee and the third party. The trial and appellate courts decided the matter based on the existence of this decree without addressing the respondent's allegation that the decree was collusive and fraudulent. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to frame and try the essential factual issue regarding the true nature of the sale transaction. The Court emphasized that a consent decree in personam is not binding on a stranger to the proceedings who challenges its validity. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments and remanded the case, directing the trial court to frame proper issues and determine whether the sale was in fact to the protected party or if the decree was a fraudulent device to defeat pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Is a consent decree obtained between a vendee and a third party binding on a pre-emptor who is not a party to the suit and challenges the decree as collusive?
  • Can a court decide a pre-emption suit based on a consent decree without adjudicating the underlying factual dispute regarding the true nature of the sale transaction?
  • Does a pre-emptor have the right to challenge the validity of a consent decree relied upon by a vendee to defeat a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus KISSAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT CORPORATION LTD.1988 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus AJAIB SULTAN1988 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-09
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionlandlord and tenantmortgagetenant's right of pre-emptionMartial Law Regulation No. 115
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises out of a pre-emption suit where the trial court, District Judge, and High Court concurrently decreed the respondent's suit based on a superior right of pre-emption as a collateral of the vendor. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a superior right to acquire the disputed land as a tenant under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Supreme Court held that after the creation of a subsequent oral mortgage between the parties, their erstwhile relationship of landlord and tenant was voluntarily terminated and replaced by a mortgagee-mortgagor relationship with different incidents. Consequently, at the time of the impugned sale, the appellant held the land as a mortgagee and not as a tenant, rendering paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 inapplicable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the creation of a mortgage between a landlord and tenant extinguishes the tenancy relationship, precluding the tenant from later claiming a tenant's right of pre-emption based on the former tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of a mortgage between a landlord and tenant terminate the tenancy relationship?
  • Can a person holding land as a mortgagee invoke paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 to claim a right of pre-emption as a tenant?
  • Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists after the execution of a mortgage between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ KHATOON Versus ZUBAIDA KHANUM1988 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-31Read full judgment →
• KHIZAR HAYAT Versus STATE1988 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-31
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal appealvicarious liabilitypre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder. The petitioners, along with a co-accused named Zawar Hussain, were charged with the murder of Mst. Manzooran. The prosecution alleged that while Zawar Hussain performed the actual firing, one petitioner raised a lalkara, and the other was present while armed with a gun. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail pending trial given the nature of their alleged participation. The Supreme Court observed that the encounter appeared unplanned and that the pre-existing enmity was specifically between the co-accused Zawar Hussain and the deceased. Consequently, the Court held that the implication of the petitioners in the crime required further inquiry to determine their actual guilt. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal, and admitted the petitioners to bail, establishing the principle that where the specific role and culpability of an accused in a murder case require further investigation, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an accused at the scene of a crime while armed, without evidence of a planned encounter, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Is a case fit for further inquiry when the specific role of the accused in a murder charge is contested and the enmity is primarily between the deceased and a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• S.A. MUKARIM Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1988 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunaldepartmental appealmodification of penaltycompulsory retirementinfructuous appealamendment of memo of appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal as infructuous and not maintainable. The appellant, an Excise and Taxation Inspector, was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. While his departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary and his appeal before the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 were pending, the departmental appellate authority partly allowed his appeal by substituting the penalty of dismissal with compulsory retirement. The Service Tribunal subsequently held that the appellant's pending appeal had become infructuous and that he should have filed a fresh appeal against the appellate order within limitation. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's view was untenable, ruling that a subsequent modification or reduction of penalty in a departmental appeal does not render a pending appeal against the original order infructuous or destroy the appellant's vested right to have the original order determined on its merits. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the modification of a penalty by a departmental appellate authority renders a pending service appeal against the original order infructuous?
  • Does an aggrieved civil servant lose the right to pursue a pending appeal against an original departmental order if a fresh appeal against the subsequent appellate order is not filed within limitation?
  • What is the effect of section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, when an appeal is filed against an original order before the decision of a departmental appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZEER AHMAD Versus GHULAM MEHDI1988 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  evacuee propertycivil court jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionplaint rejectionGeneral Clauses Actcustodian of evacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit regarding the status of property claimed as non-evacuee land. The appellants sought a declaration that the suit property was not evacuee property, challenging previous orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal question was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the status of property as evacuee or non-evacuee, particularly after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the civil court correctly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court affirmed that Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 explicitly barred civil court jurisdiction in such matters. Furthermore, the Court established that the repeal of the 1957 Act did not remove this jurisdictional bar for decisions rendered while the law was in force, as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 preserved the validity and finality of those prior determinations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the suit was barred by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 remove the bar on civil court jurisdiction regarding evacuee property status?
  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the status of property as evacuee or non-evacuee?
  • Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 preserve the finality of decisions made under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 after its repeal?
  Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus YOUSUF HAJI NOOR MUHAMMADDHADHI1988 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
• QAMRUDDIN Versus HAKIM MAHMOOD KHAN1988 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-17
  ejectment applicationbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantabatement of appealvested rightlegal representativesrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant, seeking possession of a shop for personal bona fide use. The core legal questions were whether the landlord's failure to disclose other rented-out properties in the pleadings disentitled him to eviction, and whether the landlord's death during the pendency of the appeal caused the claim for personal requirement to abate. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is not legally required to disclose all other properties rented out to third parties in an ejectment application. The court affirmed that the landlord has the right to choose which property is suitable for their personal use, provided they are not in possession of other equally suitable premises in the same locality. Furthermore, the court held that once a personal action for ejectment matures into a decree, the right to possession becomes a vested property right that passes to the legal heirs, thus surviving the death of the original landlord. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Rent Controller's order for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord legally required to disclose all other properties rented out to third parties in an ejectment application for personal use?
  • Does a claim for personal requirement for a shop abate upon the death of the landlord during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a personal action for ejectment that has matured into a decree become part of the estate of the deceased landlord?
  • Can a landlord's choice of a specific property for personal use be challenged on the ground that they own other rented-out properties?
  Read full judgment →
• TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI Versus ZAFFAR ZAID AHMAH1988 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-11Read full judgment →
• SARDAR KHATOON Versus DOST MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-27
  benami transactionburden of proofrevenue recordbeneficial interestletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning land purchased in 1936 by Hussain Bakhsh in the name of his minor grandson, Dost Muhammad. Years later, Hussain Bakhsh filed a suit for declaration and possession, claiming the transaction was Benami and that he was the real owner. The trial court decreed the suit, but the District Judge reversed it, finding the property was purchased for the grandson's benefit. A Single Judge of the High Court restored the trial court's decree, which was subsequently set aside by a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, restoring the District Judge's judgment. The Supreme Court considered whether the transaction was Benami and whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the Benami character of the transaction, as evidence showed the purchase was intended for the beneficial interest of the respondent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the burden of proving a Benami transaction rests heavily on the plaintiff, who must succeed on the strength of his own case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proving a transaction to be Benami lies on the person asserting it?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in establishing a Benami transaction merely on the weakness of the defendant's case?
  • Whether a concurrent finding of fact by the lower appellate court can be interfered with in second appeal when material evidence was ignored?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus NADEEM SHAHID1988 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02
  pre-emptionguardian ad litemminor defendantsprocedural irregularitytechnical defectrepresentation of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit involving agricultural land purchased by minors. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor defendants rendered the entire proceedings illegal, despite the minors being represented by their paternal grandfather throughout the litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the absence of a formal appointment order was a mere technicality rather than a fatal defect. The Court observed that the grandfather had acted as the minors' representative during the purchase and had vigorously defended the suit at all stages, including appeals, with no evidence of adverse interest or negligence. The key principle laid down is that where a minor is effectively represented by a natural guardian who actively defends the suit without any conflict of interest, the procedural omission to pass a formal order appointing a guardian ad litem does not vitiate the proceedings or invalidate the decree, as such a failure is considered a technical irregularity rather than a jurisdictional error.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for minor defendants render the entire proceedings illegal?
  • Can a procedural omission to formally appoint a guardian ad litem be cured if the minors were effectively represented by a natural guardian throughout the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1988 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1988 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02
  evictionpersonal needconcurrent findings of factsecond appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the concurrent eviction orders passed against the respondent by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The appellant-landlord had sought eviction of the respondent tenant from the ground floor of a building on grounds including default in rent and personal need. The Rent Controller and first appellate court found in favor of the landlord regarding his bona fide personal need. The High Court, however, reversed this finding. The core legal question was whether the High Court could legally interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that no second appeal lay to the High Court against concurrent findings of fact based on good and sound evidence establishing the landlord's bona fide personal need. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does a second appeal lie against concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal need of a landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• BILQUIS REHMAN Versus ANJUM HAMEED1988 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• FAZAL KARIM & SONS Versus FAYYAZ AKBAR1988 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  rent restrictioncantonment areademolition and reconstructionevictiongood faithreasonablenesslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that ordered the eviction of tenants from shops in a cantonment area to facilitate the landlord's plan for demolition and reconstruction. The core legal question was whether the requirements of 'good faith' and 'reasonableness' must be read into Section 17(2)(vi) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963, even though the statute does not explicitly mention them, and whether the High Court failed to record a finding on these aspects. The Supreme Court held that even if such requirements were implied, the High Court had already made a sufficient finding of fact that the landlord's requirement was 'genuine,' which effectively satisfied the tests of reasonableness and good faith. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the eviction order. The key principle laid down is that where a landlord seeks to demolish and reconstruct a building for the purpose of substantially developing or improving the property, the requirement is generally considered bona fide and reasonable, and findings of fact regarding such genuineness by the High Court are not to be lightly interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Must the requirements of good faith and reasonableness be read into Section 17(2)(vi) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963?
  • Does a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 need to prove the requirement is reasonable and in good faith?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's finding of fact regarding the genuineness of a landlord's intent to reconstruct?
  Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ KHAN Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL1988 SCMR 797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
• ASIAN ASSOCIATED AGENCIES Versus PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-01
  arbitration awardsale of goodsrejection of goodsjurisdiction of arbitratorserror of law on the face of the awardplace of delivery
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, registered bulk suppliers of chemicals, contracted with the respondents to supply 400 tons of BHC 12%. Disputes arose regarding the acceptability and specification of the goods, non-payment, and shipment procedures, leading to a reference to arbitration. The arbitrators rendered an award in favour of the appellants, which was subsequently made a rule of the court. Upon a Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court division bench set aside a part of the award, holding that the arbitrators had exceeded their jurisdiction regarding the return of goods to Rotterdam. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the arbitrators had exceeded their jurisdiction and whether the matter of the return of goods was referable to arbitration under the pleadings and issues. The Supreme Court held that the pleadings and issues properly encompassed the questions of conformity to specifications, rejection, and place of delivery, and that the consequential direction by the arbitrators was an appropriate exercise of relief based on the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can look beyond an arbitration award to the pleadings and issues to determine the scope of matters referred to arbitration?
  • Whether the arbitrators exceed their jurisdiction by issuing a consequential direction regarding the return of rejected goods to the place of delivery?
  • Whether a buyer who takes delivery of goods at a foreign port and ships them to Pakistan can reject them without returning them to the place of delivery?
  • Whether an arbitration award suffers from an error of law on the face of the record when terms of the contract are not incorporated into the award?
  Read full judgment →
• KASSIM Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR1988 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-02
  Rehabilitation Settlement Schemenatural justiceexcess land allotmentright of hearingadministrative lawresumption of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order regarding the resumption of excess land allotted under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal question concerns whether excess land allotted under the Minimum Four Acres Allotment Scheme can be resumed from a claimant without notice or an opportunity to explain their failure to exercise the purchase option, and whether such resumption automatically invalidates subsequent re-allotments. The Supreme Court held that while the principles of natural justice require that a claimant be heard before excess land is resumed, the High Court erred in automatically restoring the original allottees' rights. The Court ruled that the matter must be remanded to the relevant authority to determine if the original allottees had a satisfactory explanation for their delay in payment. The key principle laid down is that administrative actions affecting property rights require strict adherence to natural justice, specifically providing notice and an opportunity to be heard before resuming land; however, such procedural violations do not automatically entitle the defaulting party to retain the land if their delay lacks a valid justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the resumption of excess land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme require prior notice to the allottee?
  • Can a court automatically restore an allotment after finding a procedural violation in the resumption process?
  • Is an allottee entitled to retain excess land if they failed to exercise the purchase option within the prescribed time?
  • Must administrative authorities provide an opportunity to explain delays before resuming land allotted under the Minimum Four Acres Allotment Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• HALIMA Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1988 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• JAN MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  restoration of revision applicationdismissal in defaultmisreading of recordsettlement commissionerconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These two connected appeals arose out of a dispute regarding the disposal of a building in Hyderabad, which was transferred to the appellant, Jan Muhammad, while respondents Nos. 2 and 3 sought its transfer as locals. The matter went through various proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, resulting in the dismissal of revision applications in default and the subsequent refusal to restore them. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the refusal to restore their revision applications through constitutional petitions before the High Court, which accepted the petitions on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the facts of the restoration applications. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court on the premise that the High Court's decision was based on a misreading of the record concerning the identities of the applicants. Upon closer examination of the record, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not misread the record, as the Settlement Commissioner indeed failed to advert to the actual grounds urged by the respondents for restoration. Consequently, the Court recalled the leave granting order and dismissed the appeals with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's finding regarding the non-application of mind by the Settlement Commissioner to a restoration application was vitiated by a misreading of the record?
  • Can an order of the Settlement Commissioner refusing to restore a revision application be sustained when it fails to advert to the grounds urged by the applicants?
  • What is the effect of the disappearance of the sole ground on which leave to appeal was granted?
  Read full judgment →
• UNIVERSITY OF SIND Versus AHMED BASHIR1988 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  compulsory retirementmartial law regulationjurisdictionfresh pleagazette notificationuniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent, a University professor, declaring his retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 to be without lawful authority. The High Court had proceeded on the assumption that no retirement order had been issued by the President of Pakistan, as the relevant Gazette notification was not produced by the parties, leaving only the University Registrar's circular on record. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated 30-03-1972, containing the President's order under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation No. 114, was indeed produced and admitted by both parties. The Court held that since the President had validly exercised his powers, the High Court's factual assumption was incorrect. The Court further declined to entertain a fresh legal plea raised by the respondent's counsel for the first time regarding whether the University of Sindh constituted a 'corporation' under the Regulation, as this was not raised below. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the retirement order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a completely new legal plea for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
  • Whether an order of retirement issued by the President under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 is valid if the corresponding Gazette notification is subsequently produced and admitted by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN Versus M.A. MALLICK1988 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• ISMAIL Versus SHER BANO1988 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-28
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide needSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979appellate jurisdictioncross-appealcross-objectionsmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from rent proceedings wherein the Rent Controller ordered the tenant's ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide need, while holding that default in payment of rent was not established. In the tenant's appeal before the High Court of Sindh, the learned Single Judge rejected the ground of personal need but reversed the Rent Controller's finding on default, concluding that the tenant was indeed a defaulter, and consequently dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was competent to reverse the finding regarding default in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections by the landlady. The Supreme Court held that since the eviction petition had already succeeded before the Rent Controller, the landlady was not required to file any cross-appeal or cross-objections. Under Section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the appellate court possesses full authority to scrutinize the record, correct erroneous findings based on misreading of evidence, and uphold an eviction order on an alternative ground. The tenant's appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court under Section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 reverse an adverse finding against a successful landlord in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections?
  • Is a landlord required to file a cross-appeal or cross-objections to support an eviction order on a ground decided against them by the Rent Controller?
  • Does the High Court possess the power in a rent appeal to uphold an eviction order by reversing an erroneous finding on rent default based on misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAQ AFGHAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY1988 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26
  service appealdepartmental representationmaintainabilityMartial LawSind Service Tribunalexhaustion of remediesprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the maintainability of a service appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal. The appellant challenged his service notification by filing a representation with the Chief Secretary. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as incompetent, ruling that the appellant failed to exhaust departmental remedies by not addressing his appeal to the Martial Law Administrator, who exercised the powers of the abolished Chief Minister. The Supreme Court addressed whether such a representation was legally sufficient in the absence of specific rules designating the competent authority at the relevant time. The Court held that where the office of the Chief Minister was abolished during Martial Law and no specific rule designated a successor authority for service appeals, a representation addressed to the Chief Secretary was valid. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as incompetent. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a decision on the merits, establishing that procedural requirements for departmental appeals must be interpreted reasonably when specific designations are absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before a Service Tribunal is incompetent if the departmental representation was addressed to the Chief Secretary instead of the Martial Law Administrator during the Martial Law period?
  • Does the absence of a specific rule designating an appellate authority during the Martial Law period render a representation addressed to the Chief Secretary legally invalid?
  • Is a Service Tribunal justified in dismissing an appeal as incompetent solely on the ground that the departmental representation was not addressed to the Martial Law Administrator?
  Read full judgment →
• EMPLOYEES' OLD AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION1988 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-23
  trade union registrationindustrial relationsadministration of the statedefinition of industrysocial security institutionexclusion clauses
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant institution's constitutional petition, which had challenged the National Industrial Relations Commission's order upholding the registration of respondent No. 3 as a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concerned whether the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution fell outside the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, either as being engaged in the 'administration of the State' or as an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute, or mentally unfit persons under section 1(3), or because its functions did not constitute 'industry' under section 2(xiv) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the institution's employees are not excluded by clauses (b) or (f) of section 1(3) and that its functions constitute a 'service' falling within the definition of 'industry'. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, establishing that statutory bodies providing old-age and social security benefits to workers are subject to labour laws under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution fall within the exclusion clause for persons employed in the administration of the State under Section 1(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does an institution established to provide old-age benefits to employees qualify as an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons under Section 1(3)(f) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Do the functions performed by the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution constitute 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAHDIN Versus ALAMUDDIN1988 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-27
  benamidarrevision petitionfraudulent withdrawalintervenerindependent proceedingsproperty ownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership of property originally purchased by respondent No. 1 in the names of others, who were alleged to be benamidars. Following a decree in favor of respondent No. 1, and subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings, the appellants intervened, claiming ownership through a gift from respondent No. 1 and alleging that respondent No. 1's withdrawal of his ownership claim in the revision proceedings was fraudulent. The High Court allowed the revision petition but directed that the appellants' claim be adjudicated in separate proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to adjudicate the appellants' claim of fraudulent withdrawal within the existing revision proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly refrained from recording elaborate evidence required to determine the validity of the alleged gift and the alleged fraud. The Court affirmed that the High Court's order did not prejudice the appellants' rights, as they remained free to ventilate their grievances in an independent, competent proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court in revision proceedings is obligated to adjudicate a claim of fraud raised by an intervener when such a claim requires the recording of extensive evidence?
  • Can an appellate or revisional court direct parties to resolve a disputed claim of ownership in separate proceedings rather than deciding it within the pending revision?
  • Does an order in revision proceedings that leaves open the possibility of an independent suit for an intervener prejudice their legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus JIWAN1988 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07
  land acquisitionThal Development Actsubsequent purchasersstatutory exemptionsretrospective effectwrit petitiondevelopment scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  These seven appeals, preferred by the Thal Development Authority and the Government of the Punjab, challenge a decision of the Lahore High Court which declared certain orders passed under section 21(2) of the Thal Development Act, 1949 to be illegal. The core legal question concerns whether purchasers of land from originally recorded owners subsequent to the issuance of acquisition notifications can claim the benefit of exemptions introduced into the statute by subsequent amendments. The Supreme Court held that since the initial acquisitions were without legal sanction and were validated only upon the promulgation of the Thal Development (Amendment) Act XX of 1955, the acquisitions and the statutory amendments came into effect at the same time, thereby negating any issue of retrospective application. The Court affirmed that subsequent purchasers are entitled to the statutory benefits and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can purchasers of land subsequent to an acquisition notification claim the benefit of exemptions introduced into the statute by subsequent amendments?
  • Do statutory amendments validating prior illegal land acquisitions take effect simultaneously with the validated acquisitions?
  • Whether the limitations and conditions contained in subsection (2) of section 21 apply to localities notified under section 36 of the Thal Development Act, 1949?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25
  court fee deficiencyappellate procedurerent restrictionconstitutional jurisdictiondismissal of appealfiscal provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a rent dispute where a tenant challenged an eviction order. The core legal question was whether an appellate authority, under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could summarily dismiss an appeal for deficient court fees without first determining the exact amount due and granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency. The Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal as incompetent due to non-payment of court fees, a decision upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside these judgments, holding that the appellate authority erred by failing to follow the established procedure regarding court fees. The Court ruled that provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are not intended to be used as penal measures to thwart adjudication. Instead, the presiding officer must determine the exact court fee payable, inform the appellant, and allow a reasonable time for compliance before dismissing the appeal. The case was remanded to the District Judge for proper determination and collection of the court fees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate authority summarily dismiss an appeal for deficient court fees without first determining the exact amount payable and granting time for rectification?
  • Are the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, applicable to proceedings before an appellate authority under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, regarding the making up of court fee deficiencies?
  • Is the dismissal of an appeal for non-payment of court fees without providing an opportunity to rectify the deficiency a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAHIM Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD1988 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• ZOHRA BEGUM Versus PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL1988 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• AMIR HAMZA Versus STATE1988 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI Versus MUHAMMAD YAQINUDDIN1988 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ejectmentpersonal uselandlord and tenantage proofNational Identity CardSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court which had set aside the Rent Controller's order for the ejectment of the respondent. The appellant-landlord had sought eviction of the respondent from a commercial shop under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds of attaining 60 years of age and personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the appellant had conclusively proved his age as 60 years at the time of filing the ejectment application to bring his case within the purview of section 14. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's National Identity Card, issued under the National Registration Act, 1973, is a public document carrying presumptive truth and corroborative probative value, which was not rebutted by any contrary evidence from the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a National Identity Card issued under the National Registration Act of 1973 carries a presumption of truth as a public document to prove age in ejectment proceedings?
  • Can a party raise a new point before the Supreme Court that was never raised before the High Court?
  • Is the oral assertion of a tenant sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence of a landlord's age in a case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus NOOR BAI1988 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
• MATLOOB ALI KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDG,EAST KARACHI.1988 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ex parte decreefamily courtreasonable timelimitation periodultra viressubordinate legislationmaintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the setting aside of an ex parte maintenance decree passed by a Family Court. The appellant, a military officer, sought to set aside the decree, but lower courts dismissed his application as time-barred, applying the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. The core legal question was whether this rule, which imposes a fixed limitation period, is consistent with Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which permits such applications to be filed within a "reasonable time." The Supreme Court held that the rule-making authority cannot frame rules inconsistent with the parent statute. Since the Act expressly provides for a "reasonable time" standard, the subordinate rule imposing a fixed thirty-day limit is ultra vires the Act. The Court established the principle that subordinate legislation cannot override the express provisions of a statute, and the determination of "reasonable time" must depend on the facts of each case rather than a fixed rule of thumb. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, ultra vires the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can subordinate legislation impose a fixed limitation period when the parent statute provides for a 'reasonable time'?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, prescribe a fixed period of limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• M . MURTAZA HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA1988 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  ejectment applicationappellate inquirysubsequent eventsadditional evidencerented premisesdiscretionary powercommercial premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment upholding an eviction order against the appellant. The core legal question was whether an appellate authority, acting under Section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, is precluded from conducting a further inquiry into evidence that emerged after the Rent Controller's decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ruling that such evidence is categorically inadmissible. The Court clarified that Section 21(3) vests discretionary power in the appellate authority to hold further inquiries when necessary for the ends of justice, and this power is not strictly limited by the technical constraints of Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court may consider subsequent events or altered circumstances if they are relevant to the controversy and necessary to ensure a just adjudication. However, because the proposed evidence in this specific case was irrelevant to the disputed premises, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate authority under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 consider evidence that came into existence after the Rent Controller's decision?
  • Are the restrictions on producing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to inquiries under Section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is an appellate court empowered to mould relief based on changed circumstances or subsequent events?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ KHALID Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF1988 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1988 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-26
  capital gains taxactual costdeductionsvacant possessiontenants compensationadditions or alterationsWest Pakistan Finance Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding capital gains tax. The core legal question was whether compensation paid by the purchaser-assessee to tenants to secure vacant possession of a purchased property constitutes 'actual cost to the assessee' or 'expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations' under Section 16(2)(b) of the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, and is thus deductible in computing capital gains. The Supreme Court held that payments made to tenants to induce them to vacate premises protected under tenancy laws do not qualify as actual cost or permissible capital expenditure for additions or alterations, noting that price escalation was due to general real estate market trends rather than structural alterations. The Court laid down the principle that only genuine purchase prices and legitimate, lawful expenditures directly forming part of the asset's acquisition, preservation, or authorized alteration can be factored into 'actual cost,' and payments made to circumvent tenancy protections or pressure tenants to vacate are neither legitimate nor deductible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compensation paid to tenants to secure vacant possession of a property constitutes actual cost under Section 16(2)(b) of the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963?
  • Can payments made to tenants to eject them from protected premises be classified as capital expenditure incurred in making additions or alterations to the property?
  • Whether general market price escalation of real estate can be attributed to structural alterations made by the assessee for the purpose of capital gains tax deductions?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT Versus PAKISTAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION1988 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  arbitrationsole arbitratorjurisdictionwaiverestoppelacquiescenceextension of timegovernment contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute where the respondent company appointed a sole arbitrator after the appellant department failed to nominate theirs. The appellant initially participated in the proceedings, raised a misconceived jurisdictional objection, and later consented to a court-ordered extension of time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant subsequently challenged the award, asserting that the sole arbitrator lacked the qualifications specified in the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that while an inherent want of jurisdiction cannot be cured, an irregular assumption of jurisdiction or a defect in the nomination of an arbitrator (such as failing to meet subsidiary qualification criteria) is a curable irregularity. By participating in the proceedings and consenting to the extension of time without further protest, the appellant waived the right to object. The Court affirmed that such conduct binds the government on the principles of acquiescence, waiver, and estoppel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defect in the nomination of an arbitrator regarding subsidiary qualification clauses constitutes an inherent lack of jurisdiction or a curable irregularity?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitrator after consenting to a court extension of time for making the award?
  • Does the participation of a government official in arbitration proceedings bind the government under the principles of waiver and estoppel?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus HABIBULLAH KHAN1988 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
• CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND Versus GHULAM HYDER SHAH1988 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-17
  land reformsretrospective legislationpast and closed transactionsvested rightssuo motu reviewbona fide transactiongift to non-heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  These two appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a common question of law regarding whether the Land Reforms Regulation (Sind Amendment) Ordinance 1972, which was made retrospective to 11th March 1972, could nullify land alienations previously declared valid under the unamended Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115). In both cases, the Land Commissioner had initially validated gifts made to non-heirs under paragraph 7(1)(b) of the unamended Regulation. Following the amendment, which barred the Commission from holding gifts to non-heirs as bona fide, the Land Commissioner reviewed and declared the gifts void. The High Court of Sind set aside these review orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that while the amending Ordinance was retrospective, it lacked express provisions or necessary intendment to reopen past and closed transactions. The Court laid down the principle that rights determined by judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication under existing law are vested and cannot be disturbed by subsequent legislative amendments unless such an intention is clearly expressed or arises by necessary implication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a retrospective amendment to a land reform regulation automatically reopen and nullify transactions that were already validated and closed under the unamended law?
  • Can a statutory authority use its review powers to apply a newly enacted legislative prohibition retrospectively to transactions it had already finalized?
  • Whether rights that have been determined by judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication can be disturbed by a subsequent change in law without express statutory language or necessary implication?
  Read full judgment →
• SAIRA BAI Versus ANTS-UR-REHMAN1988 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus JAMIL AHMAD1988 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus HAMEEDA BEGUM1988 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-27
  ejectmentrented premiseswidow's right to evictionpersonal uselandlord definitionstatutory interpretationinheritance rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which was upheld by the High Court. The respondent, a widow and landlord, sought possession of the premises for personal use. The appellant challenged the eviction, contending that the special provision under Section 14(1) of the Ordinance, which permits a widow to seek eviction for personal use, was inapplicable because the respondent was not the sole heir of the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the provision is designed to mitigate hardship faced by widows and should not be construed narrowly to exclude widows who are not sole owners. The Court clarified that the term "landlord" includes persons authorized to receive rent, and an application by a widow for personal use does not prejudice the rights of other heirs in the property. The principle established is that a widow, even if not the sole heir, is entitled to invoke the special summary procedure for eviction under the Ordinance provided she is authorized to manage the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a widow who is not the sole heir of the deceased landlord invoke the special provision for eviction under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the term 'landlord' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, require the person to be the sole owner of the premises?
  • Does an application for eviction by a widow for personal use prejudice the property rights of other legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A. RAHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-10
  quasi-judicial functionsdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductinefficiencycustoms adjudicationservice lawjudicial independence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that converted the appellant's dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. The appellant, a Collector of Customs, had been disciplined for allegedly failing to conduct further inquiries or remand a case while exercising quasi-judicial appellate powers under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether an erroneous decision, absent dishonesty, subjects a quasi-judicial functionary to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct or inefficiency. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary action cannot be used to penalize honest errors in quasi-judicial functions, as such functions must remain independent. The Court emphasized that the statutory mechanism for correcting judicial errors is through appeal or revision, not disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a single instance of error does not establish inefficiency under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which requires a finding of lasting incapacity. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty, establishing that quasi-judicial officers are immune from disciplinary action for bona fide errors in judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a quasi-judicial officer be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for an erroneous decision made in good faith?
  • Does a single instance of error or lapse in judgment constitute inefficiency under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to interfere with the quasi-judicial discretion of Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is it permissible for a Service Tribunal to convict a civil servant of a charge for which they were not originally charged?
  Read full judgment →