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.

• MIHRI KHAN Versus GHULAM RASOOL1988 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-23
  bail cancellationcriminal appealprima facie caseextra-judicial confessionoffence punishable with death
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Bashir. The core legal question concerns whether there was sufficient material implicating the respondents to warrant withholding bail in a case involving an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petitions into appeals, and held that upon examining the relevant statements on record, including extra-judicial confessions and statements before respectables, a prima facie case was made out and there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondents were guilty. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that where sufficient prima facie material exists connecting an accused to an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, bail ought not to be granted, and appellate intervention is justified to cancel bail improperly granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be cancelled when there is sufficient material showing a prima facie case against the accused?
  • Does an extra-judicial confession made before respectables constitute reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a capital offense?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT1988 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• MARYAM Versus IRSHAD AHMAD1988 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  ocular testimonycredibility of witnessesinjured witnesssentencing discretioncriminal appealdeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which convicted the petitioners for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by two witnesses—one injured and one residing near the crime scene—and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in commuting the death sentences imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony credible and sufficient to support the findings of the High Court, noting there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. Regarding the petition for the restoration of death sentences, the Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for its decision to commute the sentences and declined to interfere with that judicial discretion. The Court affirmed that where ocular evidence is consistent and credible, particularly involving an injured witness, it constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction, and appellate courts will not interfere with sentencing discretion absent compelling justification.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to support a conviction in a murder case?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in commuting a death sentence?
  • Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a criminal petition for leave to appeal cause the petition to abate?
  Read full judgment →
• BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Versus ABDUL MAJID1988 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-21
  natural justicedomestic inquiryeducational institutionsunfair meansdisciplinary proceedingscross-examinationstudent disciplineadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside a disciplinary order passed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a student for using unfair means during an examination. The High Court had invalidated the order primarily because the student was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the supervisory staff who reported the incident. The core legal question was whether the principles of natural justice in domestic inquiries by educational institutions mandate the examination and cross-examination of witnesses in the presence of the accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that disciplinary forums in educational institutions are not required to follow the technical procedural rules of a judicial trial, such as the mandatory cross-examination of witnesses. The Court affirmed that the requirements of natural justice are flexible and depend on the circumstances of each case. As long as the student is provided a fair opportunity to represent their side and rebut the material against them, the proceedings are valid. The Court concluded that the disciplinary committee acted fairly, given the student's admission and the evidence of verbatim copying.

  Questions settled

  • Are disciplinary forums in educational institutions required to follow the technical rules of evidence applicable to judicial trials?
  • Does the principle of natural justice in a domestic inquiry against a student mandate the cross-examination of witnesses in the student's presence?
  • What is the standard for determining whether a disciplinary inquiry by an educational institution satisfies the requirements of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR Versus LAL MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  constitutional jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionamendment of pleadingsgeneral power to amendadmission in pleadingsunsound mindpreliminary issue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding property ownership and challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court that had set aside an order of an Additional District Judge in a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review orders passed by civil courts in revisional jurisdiction, as well as the power of a civil court to allow the amendment of a reply or proceeding under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that while the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked lightly against final orders of civil courts acting within their jurisdiction, it can be exercised when a subordinate court acts without lawful authority or flouts statutory provisions, such as ignoring the general power of amendment under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked in respect of an order passed by a civil court in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a civil court possess the general power under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow the amendment of a written reply or proceeding other than a pleading under Order VI Rule 17?
  • Can a party be permitted to withdraw an admission made by mistake in a proceeding or pleading by way of amendment?
  • What is the distinction between evidentiary admissions and admissions made in pleadings under the law of evidence and procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus JAMAL DIN1988 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonychance witnessesappreciation of evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a brother of the deceased and complainant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The prosecution alleged the respondent killed the deceased and another person over a land dispute by inflicting hatchet blows. The High Court acquitted the respondent, doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses, considering them chance witnesses, and noting the respondent's advanced age and infirmity made it unlikely he could perpetrate the assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its re-appraisement of the evidence and rejection of ocular testimony and motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in doubting the eye-witnesses and the motive, noting it was a matter of re-appraisement of evidence without any legal error, and accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony by classifying the witnesses as chance witnesses?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the re-appraisement of evidence by the High Court when no legal error in appreciation is shown?
  • Whether the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when ocular testimony is discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus RASOOLA1988 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-23
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderre appreciation of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 14-2-1982, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence and the propriety of the High Court's order acquitting the accused persons in a murder trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court evaluated the evidence on sound principles, finding no justification to interfere with the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal and the dismissal of the enhancement revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the evidence has been evaluated on sound principles?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a judgment of acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the record?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR Versus NASRULLAH1988 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  leave to appealacquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurdercriminal appealSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Nasrullah, of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had initially been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The complainant sought to challenge the acquittal through this petition. The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, which primarily requested a re-appraisal of the evidence regarding the factual findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it would not undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in this matter, as the case did not meet the criteria for such an exercise. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby upholding the acquittal granted by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the High Court has already acquitted the accused?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the sole ground is a request for re-appraisal of factual evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• NAJMA Versus NAZIR1988 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  leave to appealacquittalattempted rapehouse trespassreappraisal of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing her revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents for charges relating to house trespass, abduction, and attempt to commit rape under sections 452, 366, 376, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondents forcibly dragged the petitioner into a baithak and attempted to rape her before fleeing upon the alarm being raised. The trial court had convicted the respondents, but the Sessions Judge acquitted them on appeal, citing improbabilities in the prosecution story, including the lack of injuries, the presence of female family members in the residence, and the surrounding circumstances of the densely populated area. The High Court upheld this acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the record and concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court were in conformity with the requirements of the safe administration of criminal justice, finding no ground for reappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on an evaluation of evidence?
  • Is an appellate court justified in setting aside a conviction for attempted rape where the prosecution story is found to be highly improbable and unsupported by medical evidence or marks of violence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus MUNIR AHMAD1988 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH1988 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR DIVISION1988 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR Versus MAZHARULLAH1988 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22
  arbitration clausestay of suitsteps in proceedingspartnership disputerendition of accountspetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts relating to a partnership firm, wherein the trial court dismissed the petitioners' application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The appellate court set aside the dismissal, but the High Court subsequently reversed the appellate court's order, holding that the petitioners had taken steps in the proceedings prior to filing the application and were therefore not entitled to seek a stay of the suit under the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioners had taken steps in the proceedings disentitling them from invoking arbitration. The Court held that the High Court's finding of fact based on the record was unexceptionable and that no question of law arose. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a party taking steps in legal proceedings cannot subsequently invoke an arbitration clause for a stay of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party taking steps in the proceedings before filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is entitled to seek a stay of the suit?
  • Does a finding of fact regarding participation in legal proceedings by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT1988 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  pro forma promotionseniority rightsservice matteroverseersleave to appealadministrative orderpublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions filed by Overseers seeking pro forma promotion to the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, claiming parity with juniors who were promoted earlier. The petitioners relied on specific departmental orders regarding other employees to assert their rights to seniority and retrospective promotion. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the promotion orders cited by the petitioners, noting that the order concerning Khalil Ahmad explicitly stated it conferred no right of seniority or precedence over others and was subject to reversion if a senior's claim was established. Regarding the petitioner Abdul Rashid, the Court found that the promotion of others by the Government of Baluchistan occurred when the petitioner was not in competition, and the relevant government entity was not impleaded. The Court held that the cited orders did not create a vested right to pro forma promotion. Concluding that no substantial question of law of public importance existed under the constitutional framework, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the administrative adjustments did not entitle the petitioners to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does an administrative order granting retrospective pay adjustments to an employee, while explicitly preserving the seniority rights of others, confer a right to pro forma promotion on those others?
  • Can a petitioner claim pro forma promotion based on the promotion of individuals by a provincial government that was not impleaded as a party?
  • Does a claim for pro forma promotion based on departmental adjustments constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUMERRED Versus STATE1988 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
• WALAYAT Versus STATE1988 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) Versus SHIREEN AYUB KHAN1988 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• JANNAT BIBI Versus NOORA1988 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07
  leave to appealacquittalappraisal of evidencenight-time occurrenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a complainant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby five respondents convicted under sections 302/149, 148, and 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code were acquitted and their death and imprisonment sentences set aside. The core legal question involved the appraisal of evidence regarding identification in a night-time occurrence without an identification parade, and whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in a dark night occurrence where prosecution witnesses identified the assailants by face but came to know their names and addresses afterwards, such identification without an identification parade is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finding that the High Court's view of the evidence violated no principle of law and was merely a matter of appraisal, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that identification of accused persons for the first time at trial without a prior identification parade, particularly in a night-time occurrence where names were unknown at the time of the incident, is insufficient for conviction, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible appraisal of evidence by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of accused persons without an identification parade sufficient when their names and addresses were not known at the time of the incident?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal based on the High Court's appraisal of evidence where no principle of law has been violated?
  • Whether the High Court's evaluation of evidence in a night-time murder case warrants leave to appeal.
  Read full judgment →
• SHAN MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR1988 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10
  criminal petitionleave to appealdifference of opinionmurder referencesentence enhancementcompensationcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against an order of the High Court passed in a murder reference and criminal appeal, where a difference of opinion between two judges regarding the sentence of the accused (death versus life imprisonment) led to the matter being referred to a third judge as referee. The referee judge maintained the lesser penalty of life imprisonment but substantially enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased. Both the convict and the complainant challenged the order before the Supreme Court, raising contentions regarding the validity of the compensation undertaking and the appropriateness of the lesser sentence. The Supreme Court considered that the matter required further examination and granted leave to appeal in both petitions, directing that the accused shall not be released pending final disposal of the matter. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of discretion in awarding sentencing alternatives and compensation upon a reference resulting from a split verdict in a capital punishment case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the referee judge in a murder reference can enhance the compensation amount while maintaining the lesser penalty of life imprisonment?
  • Whether the discretion to award a lesser sentence in a capital case was exercised on sound legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus STATE1988 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATEA1988 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08
  injured witnessocular testimonysudden quarrelmitigation of sentenceleave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of several accused persons involved in a criminal occurrence resulting in one death and injuries to two others. The core legal questions were whether the conviction and sentence of the principal accused for murder were sustainable, and whether the sentences of the other accused warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the principal accused. Regarding the enhancement petition, the Court held that because the incident arose from a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words rather than premeditation, the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment was justified. The Court affirmed the High Court's findings, dismissing both petitions. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if related to the deceased, carries significant weight in criminal trials, and the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight is a mitigating factor against the imposition of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an injured witness, who is related to the deceased, carry evidentiary weight in a criminal trial?
  • Is the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight a valid ground for refusing the death penalty?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• HAKIM ALI Versus BARKAT BIBI1988 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07
  customary lawMuslim Personal Lawretrospective effectinheritanceWillShariat Actproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a long-standing property dispute initiated in 1957 by respondent, a daughter of the deceased owner, claiming land on the basis of a 1940 Will, where the lower courts had decided the matter under customary law. The core legal question was whether the High Court and District Judge had correctly interpreted the applicable custom regarding the owner's competence to make a gift or bequest. The Supreme Court held that the enactment of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962, with retrospective effect, mandated that the succession and the validity of the Will must be examined under Muslim Personal Law rather than custom, rendering the Will invalid without the consent of other heirs. However, the Court laid down the principle that where the application of Muslim Personal Law would entitle the claimant to a larger share than claimed under the Will, and the litigation has spanned decades, the Supreme Court may decline to interfere with the lower courts' decree to prevent further protracted litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 apply retrospectively to determine successions prior to the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948?
  • Can a legal heir take advantage of a Will under Muslim Personal Law without the consent of the other heirs?
  • Will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with a decree under appeal when applying correct personal law would yield an equivalent or greater share to the respondent after decades of litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus GENERAL ASSISTANT (REVENUE) WITH POWERS OF REGISTRATION OFFICER, OKARA1988 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• UMAR DRAZ Versus SHAHBAZ-UL-HAQ1988 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  acquittalright of private defencepetition for leave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents for charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the propriety of the acquittal based on the right of private defence and the dismissal of the State appeal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's evaluation of evidence—crediting the defence version that the accused acted in the right of private defence to rescue a minor from an attempted unnatural act—was plausible and sound, and the High Court's dismissal of the State appeal was neither perverse nor illegal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding acquittal and the exercise of the right of private defence will not be interfered with lightly by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on the right of private defence?
  • Does the right of private defence extend to rescuing a minor from the commission of an unnatural offence?
  • Whether an appellate court's dismissal of a State appeal against acquittal warrants interference when the trial court's judgment is neither perverse nor illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus AMEER ALIAS AMEERO1988 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  free fightculpable homicidesuppression of injuriesocular testimonycriminal liabilitysudden quarrelleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified convictions for murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly altered convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the finding of a sudden, unplanned "free fight" where the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s assessment was justified. The Court established that where both the prosecution and defense suppress the true origin of a conflict, and injuries are sustained by both sides, the court must meticulously sift the evidence to determine individual liability. Crucially, when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused, the credibility of ocular testimony is undermined. Consequently, in instances of sudden fights occurring without premeditation or the taking of undue advantage, the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 302, as the criminal liability does not extend to premeditated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused render ocular testimony doubtful?
  • How should a court determine criminal liability when both the prosecution and defense suppress the true version of an occurrence?
  • Does a sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1988 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05
  tax holidayspinning sectionincome taxassessment yearreference applicationquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a tax holiday dispute under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent company acquired a textile mill, including a spinning section set up in July 1954 by the Thal Development Authority, which had enjoyed a tax holiday. The respondent claimed a tax holiday for the spinning section for the assessment year 1960-61, which the Income-tax Officer disallowed, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed. The High Court dismissed the subsequent reference application, holding that the determination of the assessment year was a question of fact. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 15-B(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and evaluated the relevant financial and assessment years. The Supreme Court held that the fifth assessment year for the tax holiday fell in 1960-61 due to the specific dates of acquisition and accounting periods, rendering the respondent eligible for the relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of the fifth year for a tax holiday under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is a question of fact or a question of law?
  • Whether an assessee who acquires an industrial undertaking is entitled to claim the remaining period of a tax holiday under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • How is the five-year period of a tax holiday calculated under Section 15-B(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 with respect to the financial and assessment years?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus STATE1988 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-11
  assets disproportionate to known sourcesanti-corruptionillegal gratificationconfiscation of propertycriminal appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a Patwari, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant was originally tried under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and subsequently convicted under section 5-C(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the trial court, with a sentence of imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture of property. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintaining the forfeiture. The core legal question examined was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's plea that the properties were purchased by his wife and brother from their own funds and whether the evidence established his possession under section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence and admissions established that the appellant provided the purchase money for properties registered in the names of his wife and brother, who lacked independent income sources, and that he failed to satisfactorily account for them. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant can be convicted for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income when properties are purchased in the names of family members?
  • Does the failure to prove independent sources of income of a spouse or relative justify the conclusion that assets were acquired by the public servant?
  • Whether the appellate court was justified in maintaining the forfeiture of immovable property while reducing the sentence of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• RIAZ RASHID Versus STATE1988 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• TARIQ PERWAIZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestprostitution denHudood Ordinancecriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband and wife against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail where allegations of operating a prostitution den were supported by independent witnesses and police raid findings, notwithstanding their contention of absence from the spot and lack of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail as the first information report indicated their presence and subsequent escape, and there was no record indication of false implication or strong malice against the police. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that pre-arrest bail requires clear and strong grounds of mala fides or false implication, which were absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the first information report explicitly notes the presence and escape of the accused?
  • Are allegations of police malice sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail if they are not clear and strong?
  • Does the absence of the accused from the spot at the exact time of a raid entitle them to pre-arrest bail as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• BATI KHAN Versus GULZAR1988 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus KHUDA BAKHSH1988 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• NAZAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMA ASGHAR Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, LAHORE1988 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus ZAKIA BIBI1988 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• ZAHIDA ZAIDI Versus JAMALUDDIN AHMAD1988 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, PAK, SECRETARIAT NO.L, RAWALPINDI1988 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  promotional examinationSection Officercivil servantsservice tribunalspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the legality of a promotional examination for the posts of Section Officers. The core legal question was whether the holding of a promotional examination for filling Section Officer vacancies conflicts with Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court held that appointments to the post of Section Officer are made by selection from eligible officials serving in grades 11 to 16 who lack a common seniority list, and therefore the holding of a promotional examination does not conflict with the aforementioned statutory provisions. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that selection for Section Officer posts through a promotional examination among eligible officials without a common seniority list is legally valid and does not violate the Civil Servants Act or its allied rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the holding of a promotional examination for the post of Section Officer conflict with Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Are appointments to the post of Section Officer considered promotions in the ordinary sense?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-21
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemeinheritanceShariat Lawrefugee right-holdermutation of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examined whether the inheritance of a refugee right-holder, who migrated to Pakistan and died after filing and verifying his property claim but before actual land allotment, should be governed by the special rules of succession under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme or by Shariat Law. The Supreme Court held that under the controlling instructions dated 14-4-1954 issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, special deviations under paragraphs 46, 46-A, and 67 of the Scheme apply only to refugee right-holders who died before filing their claims. Where a claimant died after filing and verifying a claim, the normal rule of succession under Shariat Law applies in its entirety. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision applying Shariat Law to the inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the special rules of succession under paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme apply to a refugee right-holder who died after filing his claim?
  • Do the instructions dated 14-4-1954 issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner have legal force and efficacy?
  • What rule of succession governs the inheritance of a refugee claimant who died after filing and verification of his claim but before land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-28Read full judgment →
• SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Versus QAISARAH BEGUM1988 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causejudicial discretioncivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application for the restoration of a regular second appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the inadvertent omission of a counsel's clerk in noting a case on the cause list constitutes 'sufficient cause' for the readmission of an appeal dismissed in default. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the discretion of the court regarding 'sufficient cause' must be exercised judicially and that litigants should not be lightly deprived of a hearing when there is no deliberate default or gross negligence. The Court laid down the principle that an isolated inadvertent slip by a clerk, promptly rectified by a restoration application within ten days while the matter remained at the motion stage, warrants the restoration of the case to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inadvertent omission of a counsel's clerk in noting a date on the cause list constitute sufficient cause for restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Whether the discretion of a court in determining sufficient cause for the readmission of a dismissed case must be exercised judiciously having regard to all circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL TRAVELS Versus ABDUL QAYYUM1988 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  leave to appealevictiondefault in rentbona fide personal needconstitutional petitionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-tenant sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment dismissing its constitutional petition against an eviction order passed by the first appellate authority. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller had condoned the single default in rent and rejected the personal need ground, but the appellate authority reversed both findings and ordered eviction. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the exercise of discretion by the Rent Controller and the establishment of the landlord's personal need. The Court held that while the first appellate authority erred in not properly examining the Rent Controller's exercise of discretion regarding the default, the concurrent finding regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need was correctly recorded and remained intact. The Court laid down that periodic increases in rent do not negate the landlord's established personal need for the premises when the landlord is not otherwise gainfully employed. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority must examine the propriety and manner of discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when reviewing a finding of default in rent?
  • Can periodic increases in rent be utilized by a tenant to challenge the bona fide personal need of a landlord otherwise established?
  • Does the retirement of a landlord as a professor negate his bona fide personal need to start a business?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus MARAYAM1988 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  agricultural landinheritancesale of sharerevisional jurisdictionlimitationousterleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the concurrent findings of the Additional District Judge and the High Court, which held that the respondent had not sold her inherited share in agricultural land to her real brothers, the petitioners. The core legal questions for consideration were whether the respondent sold her share in the disputed land and whether the suits filed by the petitioners were barred by time. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the finding of the Additional District Judge regarding the non-establishment of the sales was fully justified by the evidence on record, and further held that the contention of limitation had little merit as there was no reliable evidence establishing the ouster of the respondent from the land. The key principles laid down are that findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts regarding the absence of a sale transaction based on evidence will not be interfered with, and limitation in suits involving co-sharers requires reliable evidence of ouster.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the sale of inherited agricultural land was not established can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a suit between co-sharers become time-barred in the absence of reliable evidence of ouster?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM FATIMA Versus RAHIM BAKHSH1988 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-04
  occupancy tenancyextinction of occupancy tenanciesshare of produceapportionment of landlandlord and tenantPunjab Tenancy Act
  Summary & questions settled

  These three appeals by leave of the court addressed the true meaning and scope of section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, specifically clause (b) of subsection (2) and subsection (4), regarding the apportionment of ownership rights between landlords and occupancy tenants. The core legal question revolved around how to determine the proportionate share of land to be vested in an occupancy tenant who pays rent in the form of a share of the produce, particularly when sub-tenants or tenants-at-will are involved, and whether internal shares or cultivation arrangements affect the statutory distribution between the landlord and the occupancy tenant. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of section 114 is exhaustive for the proportionate vesting of ownership based strictly on the produce share payable between the landlord and the occupancy tenant, without accounting for third-party sub-tenants or net profit deductions. The Court affirmed the decisions of the High Court, ruling that the occupancy tenant is entitled to land corresponding to their share of the produce while the landlord takes the remainder, and consequently dismissed all three appeals.

  Questions settled

  • How is the proportionate share of ownership calculated under section 114(2)(b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act when an occupancy tenant pays rent in the form of a share of the produce?
  • Does the presence of a sub-tenant or tenant-at-will under an occupancy tenant affect the calculation of the occupancy tenant's share for the vesting of ownership under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act?
  • Whether the internal arrangements or cultivation by third parties can reduce the occupancy tenant's share of produce in determining proprietary rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH YAR Versus NOOR BANO1988 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  interim orderstatus quocivil revisionleave to appealtitle suitpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an interim order of status quo passed by the High Court in a civil revision arising out of a pending title suit. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interim regulatory order of status quo passed during the pendency of proceedings where the petitioner contended lack of a prima facie case, absence of respondent possession, and prejudice to executed ejectment decrees. The Supreme Court held that the case was not fit for interference at this stage as the order merely preserves the existing position, noting that the petitioner may seek suitable modification of the interim order from the relevant forum if any impediment arises from his ejectment decrees. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim regulatory order of status quo passed by the High Court in a pending title suit?
  • Does an interim order of status quo preserve the existing position of the property in dispute?
  • Can a party seek modification of an interim status quo order if it creates impediments regarding executed ejectment decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADAMIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-01Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), MULTAN1988 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-06
  land allotmentProduce Index Unitssettlement proceedingsfinality of ordersre-calculation of claimsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the allotment of land and the calculation of Produce Index Units (P.I.Us). The appellants, having been allotted land based on a specific P.I.U. calculation, sought re-calculation of their entitlement, arguing that the original assessment was erroneous. The Settlement Commissioner had previously refused to re-calculate the units, citing the finality of earlier orders passed in 1967. The core legal question was whether the appellants could seek re-calculation of their P.I.Us despite the finality of the previous settlement orders. The Supreme Court held that while the previous orders had attained finality, the interest of justice and equity necessitated a re-calculation of the P.I.Us to which the appellants were entitled, given that there was no dispute regarding their underlying entitlement. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Notified Authority with directions to re-calculate the P.I.Us in the presence of the concerned parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek re-calculation of Produce Index Units after the underlying settlement orders have attained finality?
  • Does the finality of a settlement order preclude the correction of a miscalculation in Produce Index Units when the entitlement itself is undisputed?
  Read full judgment →
• MAMOON Versus STATE1988 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-28
  murderextra-judicial confessionocular testimonyadmissibility of evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidencepolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of five individuals. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony and an alleged extra-judicial confession by a co-accused. The core legal questions were the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession and the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confession was inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as it was made in the presence of police. Furthermore, the Court found the ocular testimony inherently unreliable due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct, the lack of a credible explanation for their presence, and inconsistencies between their account and the initial report. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that a confession made in the presence of police is inadmissible, and ocular testimony must be scrutinized for naturalness and consistency, particularly when witnesses fail to report a crime promptly or act in a manner inconsistent with human behavior during a violent incident.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by an accused person in the presence of police admissible in evidence?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses during a crime render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary evidence, including the motive and eyewitness accounts, is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• SATTU KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealself-defence pleavicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, Lehar Khan, sought bail on the grounds that his conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had been set aside by the High Court, which maintained his conviction only under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he received a four-year sentence. The petitioner argued that the fatal injury was attributed solely to his co-accused, Sattu Khan, and that the petitioner's own conviction related only to an injury caused to a prosecution witness. Furthermore, leave to appeal had been granted to examine whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defence and determining possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court, having considered the arguments, held that the sentence of the petitioner should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of security and sureties to the satisfaction of the relevant authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending an appeal in the Supreme Court when the conviction under the primary charge has been set aside?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when their conviction is limited to a lesser offence and the main charge was attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ALI KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• SADIQ MUHAMMAD Versus HASSAN BAKHSH1988 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicideappreciation of evidenceocular testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealinterested witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that altered the respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence in rejecting the prosecution's case and accepting the respondent's plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s evaluation was sound. The prosecution's ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to material discrepancies, including contradictions between the witnesses' accounts and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and the distance of the firing. Furthermore, the prosecution's inconsistent stance on the motive and the physical evidence—specifically the location of wounds on the deceased's back—supported the defense's version that the respondent acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the deceased in a compromising position. The judgment reinforces that appellate courts may reject ocular testimony when it lacks material corroboration and conflicts with established medical facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be altered from murder to culpable homicide based on the defense's version of grave and sudden provocation?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired render witness testimony unreliable?
  • Is the testimony of close relations of the deceased insufficient to sustain a murder conviction without material corroboration when discrepancies exist?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF1988 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16
  leave to appealalteration of sentencemurdergrievous hurtcumulative effect of injuriesmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court which altered the conviction of the respondents from Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 326/149 of the same Code, reducing their sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, who was the complainant, contended that the High Court erred in its assessment of the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries, particularly in describing two head injuries as simple when the medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was the cumulative effect of multiple injuries, including those to the head. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the alteration of the conviction and the reduction of the sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment was legally justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was legally justified in altering a conviction from Section 302/149 to Section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the cause of death was the cumulative effect of multiple injuries?
  • Whether head injuries can be treated as simple in nature when medical evidence attributes the cause of death to the cumulative effect of those and other injuries?
  • Whether a prior exchange of abuses precludes the formation of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• WAHIDA AKHTAR Versus AMTUL GHAFOOR1988 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• FAIZ AHMAD Versus ALLAH WASAI1988 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• HAFIZUR RAHMAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• PEHLWAN Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-31
  Ejected Tenants Schemeproprietary rightsunauthorized occupationallotment of landconstitutional petitionrevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the refusal of proprietary rights over state land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants established a valid allotment and lawful occupation of the land in question under the Ejected Tenants Scheme to entitle them to proprietary rights. The Supreme Court held that the original register of allotment demonstrated that the land was never allotted to the appellants, and their long-term occupation and payment of land revenue did not convert unauthorized possession into a lawful title. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs, affirming that mere occupation and payment of dues without a subsisting allotment confer no ownership rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does long-term occupation of state land and payment of land revenue confer proprietary rights in the absence of a valid allotment?
  • Can a claim for ownership rights be sustained solely on the basis of entries in a Roznamcha Waqiati that fail to show an actual allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• BIBI Versus NAZIR ALI1988 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• HLAUJ KHAN Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  pre-emptionjoint pre-emptorconstitutional petitiondeletion of partyleave to appealsinker principle
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a joint pre-emptor, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in a constitutional petition, whereby his claim was deleted and that of his co-pre-emptor was allowed. The original dispute arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land, which was partially decreed by the revenue authorities. In the constitutional petition, the High Court permitted the deletion of the petitioner and his claim, subsequently granting relief to the remaining pre-emptor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could summarily permit the deletion of a party and abandonment of relief, thereby affecting substantive rights involving the principle of sinker, without proper examination by the courts of original or revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this procedural and substantive aspect of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can summarily permit the deletion of a party and abandonment of a part of the relief in a pre-emption matter?
  • Does the deletion of a joint pre-emptor in a pre-emption suit affect the substantive right of pre-emption involving the principle of sinker?
  • Can a High Court grant relief to only one of the joint pre-emptors without examining all aspects of the case after proper application and reply?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN1988 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22
  murderdeath sentence commutationocular evidenceunproved motiveleave to appealconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of two accused for murder but commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable despite the prosecution's failure to prove motive and recovery of weapons, and whether the High Court erred in commuting the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the credibility of ocular evidence were sound and free from legal defect. The Court affirmed that the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene was consistent and reliable, justifying the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that where the motive remains unproved, it is a valid mitigating circumstance for the imposition of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal to both the convicts and the complainant, maintaining the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the motive remains unproved?
  • Is the failure to prove motive a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses in the absence of legal defects?
  Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA1988 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN1988 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  constitutional petitionsettlement schemepermanent transfer deedfunctus officiolocus standitransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a shop property. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement Authorities retained jurisdiction to interfere and transfer a portion of the disputed shop to the petitioner after a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) had already been validly issued for the entire property in favor of the respondents, and whether the petitioner had any locus standi based on an earlier rejected form and lack of occupation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the respondents had validly applied for and been transferred the entire shop as a single unit, and that division by Rehabilitation Authorities was inconsequential for the Settlement Scheme. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that once a PTD is issued for an entire property and settlement authorities become functus officio, and where division by rehabilitation authorities does not create separate disposal units under the settlement scheme, subsequent interference by settlement authorities on the motion of a non-occupant petitioner lacks lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Settlement Authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does a division of property by Rehabilitation Authorities create separate units for disposal under the Settlement Scheme?
  • Whether a petitioner out of possession and whose initial form was rejected has locus standi to file a revision before the Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus NASEER AHMED1988 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21
  leave to appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonyrecovery of weaponcriminal appealreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents of the charge of murdering the petitioner's son. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reappraising the evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular testimony and the validity of the recovery of the weapon, to grant the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence, which identified significant infirmities in the prosecution's case—including the interested nature of the witnesses and doubts surrounding the recovery of the weapon—was consistent with established principles of criminal justice. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution's case suffers from such infirmities, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must carefully scrutinize evidence in criminal cases and that acquittal is appropriate when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in acquitting an accused when the ocular testimony is found to be interested and the recovery of the weapon is doubtful?
  • Does the existence of a family relationship between the complainant and the accused necessarily preclude the possibility of false implication?
  • Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities regarding the identification of the culprits and the recovery of incriminating material?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11
  criminal petitionculpable homicidesudden quarrelright of private defenceleave to appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and affirming his conviction under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the extension of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was warranted where a sudden quarrel resulted in a single fatal knife blow, and whether a formal finding of a mutual fight was necessary. The Supreme Court held that although a sudden quarrel alone without a fight is insufficient for Exception 4, a reading of the evidence and circumstances clearly establishes that a fight immediately preceded the blow. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the conviction and sentence were properly and lawfully recorded. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a fight necessary to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be legitimately inferred from the juxtaposition of prosecution evidence, the accused's plea, and attending circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be extended in the absence of a formal finding of a mutual fight?
  • Does a single knife blow inflicted during a sudden quarrel warrant a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302?
  • Can the existence of a fight preceding a fatal blow be inferred from the prosecution evidence and the plea of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• ANWARUL HASSAN KHAN Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01
  enhancement of sentencealteration of convictionmurdergrievous hurtpetition for leave to appealmedical evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence of the respondent, whose conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was altered by the High Court to one under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the death sentence reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment based on the medical evidence showing a single injury on the thigh. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and sentence, and whether failure to award fine and compensation warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the appellate court's reduction of sentence and alteration of conviction where the medical evidence and circumstances of the case reasonably justify such a view.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the nature of the injury?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a sentence by the High Court in the absence of strong legal justification?
  • Whether the appellate court is bound to impose a fine and award compensation upon altering a conviction from murder to causing grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• NABI BAKHSH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-27
  common intentionmurdervicarious liabilitysudden fightappreciation of evidencemitigation of sentencecriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing appeals against convictions under sections 302 and 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the murder of the deceased was committed by all three appellants in furtherance of a common intention pursuant to a pre-arranged plan, or whether the stabbing was the individual act of one appellant acting alone without a pre-concert. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention or pre-planning, noting that two appellants were empty-handed, had no motive, and that the incident occurred during a sudden and unexpected confrontation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the two co-accused charged under section 302/34, and while maintaining the conviction of the principal assailant under section 302, commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for life due to the absence of a proved motive. The key principle laid down is that common intention cannot be lightly inferred in sudden, chance encounters where co-accused lack weapons and motive, and individual culpability must be strictly distinguished from joint liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be inferred in the absence of pre-concert or shared motive during a sudden, unexpected encounter?
  • Does the lack of a proved motive against the principal assailant justify the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can co-accused who are empty-handed and possess no motive be held liable for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 merely on the allegation of catching hold of the deceased's arms?
  Read full judgment →
• FAZAL ELAHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 2103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus ABDUL WAHID1988 SCMR 2102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
• INAYATULLAH Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1988 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09
  dissolution of marriageKhulazar-e-khularestitution of conjugal rightsdowerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner, the husband, challenged the lower appellate court's decision, which had overturned the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's suit for dissolution and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the husband's favor. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in failing to order the return of a house, which the husband claimed was given in lieu of the dower amount, upon granting the Khula decree. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court had already directed the wife to deposit the dower amount of Rs. 15,000 as zar-e-khula. Noting that the High Court had correctly identified that the value of the house was equivalent to the dower amount, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the financial adjustments made were sufficient and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the dissolution of marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband claim the return of property given in lieu of dower upon the dissolution of marriage by Khula?
  • Is a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula subject to interference if the court has already ordered the deposit of the dower amount as zar-e-khula?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF1988 SCMR 2099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-08
  Khula'dissolution of marriagefamily disputelimits of Allahconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage via Khula' granted in favour of his wife. The petitioner contended that the Khula' decree was legally flawed because the lower courts failed to record a specific finding that the parties would be unable to observe the limits of Allah, which the petitioner argued is a mandatory prerequisite for such a decree. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had explicitly addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to Khula' and had correctly applied the legal standard regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah. The High Court had also reviewed this finding and concurred with the trial court's conclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were both legal and proper, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a specific finding regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah a necessary prerequisite for the grant of a Khula' decree?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a family dispute regarding Khula'?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFFAR Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE1988 SCMR 2097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09
  habeas corpuscustody of minorDarul Amansummary jurisdictionSection 491 CrPCvalidity of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The detenu, Mst. Musarrat Aftab, had been detained in Darul Aman by an Additional District Magistrate following her arrest alongside the appellant in a case under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court, finding the detenu to be a minor and the marriage disputed, refused to release her to the alleged husband, citing the principle against furthering illicit affairs. Before the Supreme Court, the detenu expressed a desire to accompany the appellant, while her mother claimed custody. The Supreme Court held that in summary habeas corpus proceedings, it was inappropriate to adjudicate custody disputes or appoint a guardian, especially given the contested age and marriage validity. Consequently, the Court directed that the detenu remain in Darul Aman until a court of competent jurisdiction determines her custody in appropriate proceedings, thereby balancing her protection with the pending legal determination of her status and marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the custody of a minor in summary habeas corpus proceedings?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to release a minor to an alleged husband when the validity of the marriage is disputed?
  • Should a court in habeas corpus proceedings adjudicate upon the validity of a Nikahnama?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIMUDDIN Versus NAZIRUDDIN1988 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT1988 SCMR 2095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. Versus PUBLIC AT LAGRE1988 SCMR 2084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Islamic InjunctionsFederal Shariat CourtLocal Government OrdinanceRepugnancy to IslamShooraRight to hearingConstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the scope of the Federal Shariat Court's jurisdiction under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to declare provisions of provincial Local Government Ordinances repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Supreme Court examined whether various sections of the N.-W.F.P., Punjab, and Baluchistan Local Government Ordinances were un-Islamic for failing to mandate specific religious duties or for lacking explicit procedural protections. The Court held that the Federal Shariat Court erred in mandating amendments to provisions that were not inherently repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah. Specifically, the Court ruled that administrative bodies like the District Coordination Committee need not be representative, and that the absence of specific religious mandates (e.g., mosque maintenance) does not render a statute un-Islamic. However, the Court affirmed that where statutes lack explicit provisions for a right to a hearing, incorporating such protections is appropriate. The judgment clarifies that the Federal Shariat Court’s power to order amendments is limited to instances of clear repugnancy, not merely to improve administrative or social policy.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Shariat Court mandate amendments to a statute solely because it lacks specific provisions for religious activities like mosque maintenance?
  • Does the absence of an explicit statutory provision for a right to be heard render a law repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam if administrative rules already provide for such a hearing?
  • Is the District Coordination Committee under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance 1979 required to be a representative body bound by majority opinion?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to order amendments to laws that are not inherently repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus AZIZULLAH CHOUDHRY1988 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-06
  service tribunaltermination of servicetemporary appointmentsubstantive confirmationcivil servantconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the decisions of the Service Tribunal which had declared the removal of the two respondents from their employment on 30 days' notice to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question was whether civil servants appointed to temporary posts of indefinite duration, who were subsequently confirmed, could have their services terminated in accordance with a contractual 30 days' notice clause without statutory protection. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents held posts of indefinite duration and were confirmed, their services attracted the constitutional protection under section 240 of the Government of India Act 1935, rendering termination by mere notice unlawful. The ratio decidendi is that a contractual clause providing for termination on short notice cannot override the statutory safeguards of section 240(3) of the Government of India Act 1935 when the employee holds a substantive appointment of indefinite duration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the protection given by section 240(3) of the Government of India Act 1935 extends to persons in temporary service of indefinite duration?
  • Can an employment contract providing for termination on one month's notice override statutory protections against removal?
  • Does a Service Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the permanent nature of an appointment warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1988 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  murderdeath sentencereduction of sentencelife imprisonmentcriminal petitionSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court, whereby the first respondent's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was maintained, but his death sentence was altered to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment by the High Court was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order reducing the sentence was based on sound reasoning, and that the precedent cited by the petitioner was distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the alteration of the sentence. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment, when supported by sound reasoning, warrants no interference by the Supreme Court unless compelling grounds or erroneous legal principles are demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the reduction of sentence by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• ATAUL HAQUE Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE1988 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD1988 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptiontenant as vendeecrucial date of salepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15th January, 1980, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal upholding the dismissal of his pre-emption suit by the lower courts. The core legal question is whether a vendee who was a tenant of the disputed land at the time of sale loses his superior pre-emption right as a tenant upon acquiring ownership through the same sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition of ownership status based on the sale in question is immaterial regarding the preferential right of pre-emption, and does not confer superiority upon the pre-emptor. The crucial time for determining the superiority of a pre-emption right is the date of the sale. The key principle laid down is that a tenant-vendee retains his preferential right of pre-emption notwithstanding that the sale transforms his status to an owner, as the relevant date to assess superior right is the date of the original sale.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant who purchases land cease to be a tenant for the purpose of pre-emption rights?
  • What is the crucial time to determine the superiority of a right of pre-emption?
  • Does the acquisition of ownership via sale destroy a vendee's preferential pre-emption right as a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMEEN Versus MST. BILQEES BEGUM1988 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  free fightindividual liabilityright of self-defensemurderappreciation of evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from three petitions challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the convictions and sentences of several co-accused in a double murder and attempted murder case. The trial court had convicted the petitioners under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding death sentences and life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court set aside the death sentences, altered the convictions to individual liabilities, and sentenced the petitioners to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a free fight, thereby negating the right of self-defense and making each participant liable only for their individual acts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that because both parties had armed themselves in expectation of an armed conflict over disputed land and engaged in a trial of strength, the right of self-defense was excluded. The Court affirmed that in a free fight, each participant is liable for their own individual act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of private defense is available to parties who voluntarily engage in a free fight with a determination to have a trial of strength?
  • How is criminal liability apportioned among participants when a clash is determined to be a case of free fight?
  • Can a plea of self-defense be sustained when both parties arm themselves in full expectation of an armed conflict over a land dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus SYED HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  specific performanceagreement to sellpleadings and proofconsiderationleave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his second appeal in limine. The plaintiff-respondents had instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop, which the trial court and the first appellate court decreed after framing issues regarding undue influence, duress, and lack of consideration. The core legal question was whether a variance between the pleaded mode of payment of earnest money (cash versus adjustment of a partnership loan) and the proof thereof vitiated the suit for specific performance when the execution of the agreement and receipt of the amount were admitted by the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's unequivocal admission of executing the agreement and receiving the amount rendered the mode of payment immaterial, and a departure in the mode of payment did not defeat the claim for specific performance. The Court laid down that minor variances in the mode of consideration, where the execution of the agreement and receipt of funds are admitted by the promisor, do not invalidate a decree for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a variance between the pleaded mode of payment of consideration and the proof thereof is fatal to a suit for specific performance?
  • Does an admission of the execution of an agreement to sell and receipt of consideration cure discrepancies in the pleadings regarding the mode of payment?
  • Can a defendant raise a new plea regarding partnership accounts at the appellate stage when it was not made an issue at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• ISLAM DIN Versus ALLAH NAWAZ1988 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  condonation of delaylimitationgood faithwrong forumsufficient causecivil revisionpre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision, effectively overturning a lower appellate court's decision to condone a delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner, a defendant in a pre-emption suit, had filed an appeal in the High Court, which was returned as incompetent, and subsequently re-filed it before the District Judge. The core legal question was whether the District Judge correctly condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the wrong forum based on a claim of bona fide mistake by counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error does not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that 'good faith' requires due care and attention, and where the law regarding the proper forum is clear and unambiguous, filing in the wrong court constitutes gross negligence rather than a bona fide mistake.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the standard for 'good faith' when seeking to exclude time for proceedings prosecuted in the wrong court under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court condone a delay in filing an appeal if the law regarding the proper forum is plain and unambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ Versus YOUSAF1988 SCMR 1999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH KHAN1988 SCMR 1996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-05
  dissolution of National AssemblyArticle 58(2)(b)writ jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefconstitutional lawnational interestgeneral elections
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision regarding the President's dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of the Federal Cabinet on 29th May 1988. The core legal question was whether the grounds for dissolution satisfied the constitutional preconditions set forth in Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the President's grounds for dissolution lacked the necessary nexus with the constitutional requirements of Article 58(2)(b). However, despite finding the dissolution unlawful, the Court exercised its discretion to decline the consequential relief of restoring the National Assembly and the Federal Cabinet. The Court reasoned that the national interest, specifically the imminent general elections, necessitated avoiding chaos and confusion. The key principle laid down is that while the Court upholds constitutional legality, it may exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to withhold specific relief if granting it would cause greater harm to the public interest or the collective good, particularly when the nation is already committed to an electoral process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the President's power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require a nexus between the grounds for dissolution and the constitutional preconditions?
  • Can the Supreme Court decline to grant the consequential relief of restoring a dissolved assembly even after finding the dissolution to be unconstitutional?
  • Does the principle of collective good and national interest allow the Court to subordinate individual or political rights in the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• RIAZ-UL-HAQ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, BAHAWALPUR1988 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAQUE Versus SULEMAN1988 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02
  specific performancerevision petitiondismissal in limineleave to appealmisreading of recordappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, Abdul Haque, which was decreed by the trial court subject to the payment of the remaining sale price within a specified timeframe. Following an appeal filed by the defendants, the petitioner sought the dismissal of said appeal, which the Additional District Judge refused, directing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition against the appellate court's refusal to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or misconstruction of the record by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, ruling that in the absence of any error of law or misappreciation of evidence, the petition for leave to appeal was not a fit case for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a revision petition in limine by the High Court constitute a valid exercise of jurisdiction when no misreading of the record is established?
  • Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have not committed any error of law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus MIR MEHRULLAH KHAN1988 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
• WAHID KHAN Versus NAWAB BIBI1988 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
• FAYYAS AKHTAR Versus HAFEEZUR RAHROAN1988 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-29
  service tribunalseniority disputepromotioncivil servantupgradation of postinter se seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute between an Assistant Foreman and a Workshop Supervisor in the Defence Science and Technology Organization. The core legal question concerned the determination of inter se seniority between holders of different posts in the same grade where no specific service rules existed. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal erred in applying Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act to determine pre-promotion seniority, as that provision only regulates seniority in the next grade after promotion. The Court concluded that since the appellant was already holding a grade 14 post when the respondent's post was upgraded to grade 14, the respondent could not be regarded as senior. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the respondent's departmental appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 can be used to determine the pre-promotion seniority of officers holding different posts?
  • How is inter se seniority determined between employees holding different posts in the same grade in the absence of specific service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• ISLAM-UD-DIN Versus ALLAH RAKHA SAJID1988 SCMR 1989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
• KABIR AHMAD BUKHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02
  constitutional petitionfundamental rightsSupreme Court jurisdictiondismissal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the enforcement of alleged fundamental rights. The core legal question is whether the petition discloses any violation of a fundamental right necessary to invoke the original public interest jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court held that no violation of any fundamental right was alleged or established, rendering the invocation of jurisdiction incompetent. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is incompetent and liable to be dismissed if it fails to allege or demonstrate the violation of a fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be invoked without alleging a violation of a fundamental right?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02
  proportional representationelectoral systemlegislative fiatoriginal jurisdictionfundamental rightsseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a judicial order to mandate that elections be held on the basis of proportional representation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether the judiciary possesses the authority to direct the legislature to adopt a specific electoral system and whether such a matter falls within the scope of the Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of an electoral system is a matter of legislative fiat, which lies outside the purview of judicial intervention. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the request did not pertain to the enforcement of a fundamental right, thereby rendering it outside the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3). The judgment affirms the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary cannot compel the legislature to enact specific electoral policies or legislate in a particular manner.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court direct the legislature to adopt a system of proportional representation for elections?
  • Does a request to change the electoral system fall within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• BENAZIR BHUTTO Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02
  political partieselectoral processfundamental rightsfreedom of associationelection symbolsconstitutional petitionRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the restrictions placed on political parties regarding their participation in the general elections scheduled for November 16, 1988. The core legal question was whether statutory amendments that effectively excluded political parties from the electoral process, particularly regarding the allocation of election symbols, violated the fundamental right of association guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the petition, holding that Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinances of 1985, was unconstitutional to the extent that it failed to recognize the participation of political parties in elections. The Court declared that every political party is eligible to participate in National and Provincial Assembly elections and is entitled to the allocation of election symbols under the existing election rules. The judgment affirms the principle that legislative measures cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to form and operate political parties by denying them a meaningful role in the electoral process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of political parties from the electoral process violate the fundamental right of association?
  • Are political parties entitled to the allocation of election symbols for National and Provincial Assembly elections?
  • Is Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 unconstitutional to the extent that it ignores the role of political parties in elections?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus ABDUL HAMID1988 SCMR 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
• GHULAM GHAUS Versus GHAZANFAR ALI1988 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus IMAM BAKHSH1988 SCMR 1980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• GHAUNS BAKHSH Versus BUDHA.1988 SCMR 1979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HALEEM Versus ANAYAT BIBI1988 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →