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.
- BAKHSH ALI Versus ALI GUL1988 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus FEDERATION CF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves twelve petitions for leave to appeal arising from judgments of the Sind High Court concerning the constitutional validity and scope of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, introduced by the Eighth Amendment. The core legal question is whether Article 270-A completely bars constitutional petitions under Article 199 against convictions and actions taken by Military Courts and authorities during the martial law period, or whether such challenges remain competent on grounds of being without jurisdiction or coram non judice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of public importance, noting the contentions regarding the absolute immunity of martial law orders versus the restricted judicial review power under Article 199. The Court granted leave, ordered security, recorded the Attorney-General's assurance that death sentences would not be executed pending the appeals, and stayed further proceedings before the High Court in the related petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely bar petitions under Article 199 against convictions by Military Courts?
- Does the scope of judicial review under Article 199 extend to actions of military authorities that are without jurisdiction or coram non judice?
- Whether Martial Law Orders incorporated into the Constitution via Article 270-A enjoy the same immunity from challenge as constitutional provisions?
- ABDUR RASHID Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' joint appeal and upheld their convictions and sentences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad. The petitioners were charged with making a murderous assault on the injured complainant in broad daylight. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and credibility of the eye-witnesses, specifically concerning their status as interested persons and the lack of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the relationship between the parties, the occurrence of the incident in broad daylight ruling out mistaken identity, and the absence of any infirmity in the testimony of the eye-witnesses justified the dismissal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of interestedness when the incident occurs in broad daylight, identity is not in doubt, and their evidence is found consistent and trustworthy.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground that they are related to the victim?
- Does an incident occurring in broad daylight eliminate the possibility of mistaken identity of the assailants?
- Is independent corroboration strictly required when the eye-witnesses are natural witnesses and related inter se to the accused?
- HAMIDULLAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus ALLAH RAKHA1988 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- GEHNA Versus HAMEEDANI1988 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- REHMAT BIBI Versus SHARIFAN BIBI1988 SCMR 1812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- PAK FEEDERS Versus SULTAN POULTRY FARM1988 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADBAKHSH Versus SABAN1988 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA SALEEM Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 1809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- AFAHMOOD ULLAH Versus ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL PROPERTIES) LAHORE DIVISION1988 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM Versus SAID MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) to protect their land ownership and possession. During the trial, one of the defendants died, and his legal representatives were not impleaded within the limitation period, prompting the trial court and the first appellate court to hold that the suit had abated in its entirety. On revision, the Lahore High Court reversed this finding, holding that because the deceased defendant's share in the disputed land was a distinct, severable fraction (one-sixth) as per the revenue records, the abatement was partial and limited only to his share. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that where the share of a deceased defendant is specific, fixed, and ascertainable, and the cause of action is severable without the risk of passing contradictory decrees, the suit abates only to the extent of the deceased's share rather than in toto.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant results in the total abatement of a suit when the deceased's share in the property is distinct and severable?
- What is the legal test to determine whether an abatement of a suit is partial or total?
- Can a suit for declaration and permanent injunction proceed against surviving defendants if it has abated against a deceased defendant who held a specific, ascertainable fraction of the disputed property?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1803 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- NAZOO Versus HASSU KHAN1988 SCMR 1801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus GULLAI1988 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing their writ petition, which had challenged the Collector's refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for the supply of canal water to their purchased State land. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the land at a public auction subject to a condition that an additional sum representing the difference between the market value and the purchase price would be paid if the land subsequently became capable of canal irrigation. Although this condition was omitted from the formal sale deed, the Collector withheld the certificate until the said difference was paid. The core legal question was whether the auction condition regarding the payment of the additional price remained enforceable despite its omission from the subsequent sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding the unenforceability of the un-incorporated condition needed consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a condition of a public auction enforceable against a purchaser if it is omitted from the formal sale deed?
- Can the Collector withhold a no-objection certificate for canal water supply to compel payment of an additional land price?
- Whether the omission of a term from a sale deed extinguishes prior auction conditions?
- AIWAZ KHAN Versus ALLAH BAKHSH1988 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
- ZUBEDA BEGUM Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-10Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning a claim for the refund of excess excise duty paid to the department. The core legal question involves whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition while directing the relevant authority to dispose of the pending application for condonation of delay expeditiously in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's direction was a positive one requiring the authority to act in accordance with the law and that the petitioner could approach the authority for proper relief upon hearing and consideration of relevant questions. The Court further noted the appropriateness of examining whether the respondent department had a voluntary obligation to refund admitted amounts and whether rules barring such refunds are ultra vires the law and the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a direction by the High Court to an authority to dispose of a time-barred refund application expeditiously constitutes a sufficient positive direction?
- Is it the duty of a government department to discharge its obligation voluntarily to refund admitted amounts of excess duty?
- Whether rules preventing the refund of excess duty without a formal timely demand are ultra vires the law and the Constitution?
- AMINA BI Versus MUHAMMAD ABBAS BUTT1988 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute between the maternal-grandmother (petitioner) and the biological father (respondent) over three minor children following the mother's death during childbirth. The respondent-father filed an application for custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, which the Guardian Judge initially dismissed. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed that decision and granted custody to the father on the ground of the minors' welfare. The petitioner challenged this before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed her constitutional writ petition in limine. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the welfare of the minors was best served by granting custody to the biological father over the maternal-grandmother and whether the High Court properly declined to interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the finding regarding the welfare of the minors was a factual determination properly made by the appellate court on the record, which could not be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with an appellate court's finding of fact concerning the welfare of minors in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
- Whether the biological father can be granted custody of minor children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in preference to their maternal-grandmother where it is found to serve the welfare of the minors?
- Does a finding on the welfare of minors in custody proceedings constitute a finding of fact?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,LAHORE Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD1988 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1988 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ1988 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The central legal question was whether a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the respondent was time-barred, specifically regarding the computation of limitation periods and the exclusion of time spent pursuing a review petition and obtaining certified copies. The Supreme Court held that the LPA was indeed time-barred. The Court reasoned that the limitation period for filing the LPA had already expired before the review application was filed and before the copy of the Single Judge's order was requested. Consequently, the time spent pursuing the review application or obtaining copies could not be excluded to extend the limitation period. The Court established the principle that once the limitation period for filing an appeal has begun to run, it does not stop; therefore, time spent in pursuing an alternative remedy like a review petition or obtaining copies cannot be deducted if the original prescribed period for the appeal has already elapsed. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench was set aside.
Questions settled- Can the time spent pursuing a review petition be excluded from the limitation period for a Letters Patent Appeal if the limitation period had already expired?
- Does the time spent obtaining a certified copy of a judgment count towards the limitation period if the application for the copy is made after the limitation period for the appeal has expired?
- Once the limitation period for filing an appeal has begun to run, can it be stopped by pursuing an alternative remedy?
- ALI IBNE MUHAMMAD Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION WING1988 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons whose claims were verified in 1958 but remained unfulfilled due to administrative delays. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to land allotment after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975, despite the absence of pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, holding that the mere verification of a claim and issuance of an entitlement certificate did not constitute 'pending proceedings' for allotment. Consequently, there was no legal basis to compel the authorities to allot land after the statute's repeal. The key principle laid down is that rights to land allotment under the settlement scheme are contingent upon the existence of formal, pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Court acknowledged the appellants' harsh treatment by the Settlement Department and expressed an expectation that authorities would still attempt to adjust the claim if land were available.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of an entitlement certificate constitute 'pending proceedings' for the allotment of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975?
- Can a claim for land allotment be enforced after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975 if no allotment proceedings were pending?
- Does the failure of administrative authorities to act on a verified claim create a vested right to land allotment after the repeal of the governing statute?
- MST. JANAT BIBI Versus MST. HASHMAT BIBI1988 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition challenging orders passed by settlement authorities regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning a significant delay in filing a revision petition and whether the respondent had a valid claim to the property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision. The Court found that the respondent failed to pursue her claim diligently, noting an unexplained delay of over thirteen years in challenging the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent's claim form appeared to be manipulated, as the registration date preceded the date of the application itself, and evidence indicated the respondent's son was aware of the transfer years prior. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondent lacked clean hands and had no locus standi. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and affirming the original settlement decision.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be allowed when there is an unexplained delay of over thirteen years in challenging an administrative order?
- Does the manipulation of a claim form and the presence of fraudulent entries disentitle a party from seeking relief?
- Can a party claim ignorance of a property transfer order when evidence shows their family member was aware of the proceedings?
- AHMAD ASHRAF Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendant to lead additional evidence during the pendency of a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded during the trial. The appellant had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding the validity of his M.A. English degree, which was decreed in his favour after the defendant failed to lead evidence. The First Appeal was dismissed, and during the pendency of the revision petition, the High Court permitted the defendant to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that while ordinarily additional evidence is not recorded at the revisional stage, exceptional cases exist where the interest of justice and the requirements of the court demand it, especially in matters involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and missing primary records. The Supreme Court maintained the order permitting additional evidence but set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and remanded the proceedings to the District Judge for a fresh decision after recording and evaluating the relevant evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court allow additional evidence to be produced during the pendency of a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether exceptional circumstances justify the recording of additional evidence at the revisional stage when a party failed to produce evidence during the trial?
- What is the appropriate procedure for an appellate or revisional court when primary evidence is not led and secondary evidence is admitted without determining statutory conditions?
- KHAN BAIG Versus IRSHAD BEGUM1988 SCMR 1775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the inheritance and exact shares of parties following the termination of a limited estate held by Mst. Rakhi, widow of Ditta, who died in 1962. The core legal question concerned the determination of the exact shares to which the contesting parties were entitled under Muslim Law and applicable statutory provisions following the termination of the limited estate under customary law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower forums, and declared the modified shares of the respective parties in accordance with the provisions of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, and established principles of Muslim succession law. The key principle laid down is that upon the termination of a female limited estate, succession opens out to persons entitled at the time of the last male owner's death, with presumptive devolution applied to intermediate deceased heirs as mandated by statute.
Questions settled- How is succession determined upon the termination of a Muslim female's limited estate held under customary law?
- What is the effect of Section 3 of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1948 on the devolution of property when intermediate heirs have died?
- Are limited estate holders legally competent to deprive the heirs of the last male owner through a will or compromise decree?
- IMAMUDDIN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR SHAH Versus DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DEVELOPMENT II, I . T . R . , ISLAMABAD PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
- ANWAR BIBI Versus HAMAD1988 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Mst. Anwar Bibi against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed her regular second appeal in limine, thereby affirming the decree of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 112 kanals and 18 marlas, initiated by the respondents. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreement or the payment of earnest money, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The petitioner contended that as a Pardah observing lady, the agreement was not legally proved and no consideration was paid. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all contentions raised by the petitioner. Observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal flaw, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the case did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted where the petitioner fails to demonstrate any legal flaw or misreading of evidence in the High Court judgment?
- Does the status of a Pardah observing lady automatically invalidate an agreement to sell if the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration are otherwise established by evidence?
- KHALIL-UR-REHMAN Versus TOWN COMMITTEE, RABWAH1988 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by an employee against a Town Committee challenging his compulsory retirement, which was decreed in his favour by the trial court and upheld in first appeal. However, the High Court accepted the respondent's civil revision, set aside the decree, and remanded the case for retrial at the district headquarters under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, relying on precedent. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that Section 24(2) created a mere technical defect without prejudice to the respondent and that Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was overlooked. The Supreme Court considered whether an objection regarding the venue or place of trial under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 could justify setting aside a decree in revision without satisfying the strict conditions laid down in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Leave to appeal was granted to examine this question.
Questions settled- Can a decree be set aside in revision on grounds of improper venue under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 without satisfying the requirements of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MIRA KHAN Versus GHULAM FAROOQ1988 SCMR 1765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN GHAZI Versus KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM1988 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner seeking the recall of a prior Supreme Court order dated 20-10-1985, which had dismissed the petitioner's earlier Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 490-R of 1983 as infructuous. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a direction compelling the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer specific property to him, claiming he was unable to adequately present his case during the previous hearing due to short notice. The core legal question was whether a miscellaneous petition could be used to challenge and recall a final order of the Court without following the formal procedure for filing a review petition. The Court held that the miscellaneous petitions were procedurally defective as they effectively sought a review of a final order without complying with the prescribed rules for review petitions. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the petitioner could not be joined as a party or substituted in a withdrawn review petition when the original relief sought by the review petitioner was distinct from the petitioner's own claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions.
Questions settled- Can a miscellaneous petition be used to challenge a final order of the Supreme Court without filing a formal review petition?
- Does the withdrawal of a review petition by the original petitioner render a third party's application to join that review as a party infructuous?
- Is a party entitled to be substituted as a petitioner in a review petition if their claimed relief differs from the relief originally sought by the review petitioner?
- HAKIM KHAN Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR1988 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court in a land ejectment case. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly declined discretionary relief due to the petitioners' dilatory conduct and whether technical objections regarding the restoration of the suit and the omission of compensation adjudication warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was justified given the petitioners' delinquency in prolonging proceedings for twelve years, and that the omission of compensation determination did not invalidate the ejectment. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down include that discretionary constitutional relief will be withheld from litigants whose conduct is marked by delay and frivolous applications, and that a tenant's claim for compensation for improvements does not invalidate ongoing ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can decline discretionary constitutional relief to tenants who prolong ejectment proceedings through frivolous applications?
- Does the omission of the determination of compensation for improvements invalidate a land ejectment order?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when technical objections regarding the restoration of a suit are found to be unfounded by the High Court?
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Railways against the judgment of the High Court upholding the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the Railways Administration to pay daily allowances to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Special Ticket Examiners, for periods they served at Multan upon their own request due to lack of accommodation at their respective headquarters. The core legal question is whether Rule 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1, permits the payment of daily allowance when an employee's halt at a place exceeds 10 days, treating it as a temporary headquarter. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner needed examination and granted leave to appeal, while suspending the orders of the High Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal and directing that any amounts already paid should not be recovered during the pendency of the appeal. The key principle established relates to the interpretation of service rules concerning temporary headquarters and daily allowances for railway employees.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1, permits the payment of daily allowance when the halt of an employee at any place exceeds 10 days?
- Does a place of halt exceeding 10 days become a temporary headquarter for the purpose of denying daily allowances under the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code?
- PEARLS FABRICS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB ALI Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI1988 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- BAGH ALI Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 1756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MATEH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- MIAN AHMAD Versus SULTAN MUBARAZ1988 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
- JAVAID AKHTAR Versus REHANA TANVIR1988 SCMR 1751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus NAWAB1988 SCMR 1750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The property dispute involves rival registered sale-deeds executed by the same owner, Mst. Irshad Begum, selling shares of land in village Pindi Gheb, District Attock to the petitioner and the respondent respectively. The core legal question concerns whether the land sold to the respondent formed part of the land previously transferred to the petitioner. The trial court answered in the affirmative, but the Additional District Judge took a contrary view, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction with the factual findings of the lower appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent or appellate findings on land identification in revision do not warrant Supreme Court interference without jurisdictional error.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the identification of land sold through registered deeds?
- Does a petition against concurrent or appellate findings on land demarcation warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- ABDUR RASHID Versus FAYYAZ BEGUM1988 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas in Jhelum. The land was originally sold to the petitioner, Abdur Rashid, via Mutation No. 4910 in 1973. The respondent, Mst. Fayyaz Begum, filed a suit for pre-emption, asserting a superior right of pre-emption and challenging the sale consideration. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit based on findings of mala fides and estoppel, the District Judge reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent. The Lahore High Court subsequently upheld the appellate decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in determining the respondent's superior right of pre-emption and the validity of the sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the appellate court and the High Court regarding the respondent's superior right. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' judgments in favor of the respondent's pre-emption claim.
Questions settled- Does a niece possess a superior right of pre-emption over a stranger purchaser regarding the land of her uncle?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the appellate court and the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- AISHA BIBI Versus ABDUL WAHAB1988 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- AISHA BIBI Versus ABDUL WAHAB1988 SCMR 1746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- INAYAT-UL-HAQ Versus SALD MUHAMMAD KHAN1988 SCMR 1743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus AKBAR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the dissolution of the Punjab Road Transport Board and subsequent consequential orders, such as employee retirement and termination, to be illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the Government of the Punjab possessed the executive authority to dissolve the Board established under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and whether such actions could be validated retrospectively. During the pendency of the appeals, the Provincial Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1988, was enacted, which explicitly amended Section 70 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. This amendment granted the Government the power to dissolve the Board and retrospectively validated all actions, notifications, and orders issued on or after May 9, 1985, notwithstanding any prior court judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the legislative intervention effectively cured the infirmities identified by the High Court. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, establishing the principle that valid retrospective legislation can override judicial decisions regarding executive actions.
Questions settled- Can the legislature retrospectively validate executive actions that were previously declared illegal by a court?
- Does the power to establish a corporate body under a statute inherently include the power to dissolve it?
- What is the effect of a validation act on pending litigation challenging the underlying executive actions?
- GHULAM AHMAD SAEED Versus REHMAN DAYAR KHAN1988 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, examining whether the Governor of N.-W.F.P. had jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, in a property dispute originating in Chitral. A dispute over the estate of the former Mehtar of Chitral led to various proceedings regarding maintenance and inheritance rights for a widow, Mst. Khorkasha Khunza, who was ultimately awarded 41 Chakorams of land as an absolute owner by the Additional Commissioner. A revision against this order was dismissed by the Officer-on-Special Duty / Joint Secretary, who had been specifically empowered by the Provincial Government under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969. Subsequently, the Governor of N.-W.F.P. entertained an application and set aside the decision. The High Court set aside the Governor's order, holding that the Governor lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that once the Provincial Government's powers under the relevant notifications had been validly exercised and exhausted by its designated delegate, neither the Government nor the Governor retained jurisdiction to interfere further.
Questions settled- Whether the Governor of N.-W.F.P. had jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in revision under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969?
- Did the Provincial Government retain jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter after delegating its appellate and revisional powers to an authorized officer under notification?
- Whether an order passed by a delegatee exercising powers under the Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation 1969 is open to further interference by the executive head?
- SHER BAHADUR Versus BEHRAM KHAN1988 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff-appellant regarding the sale of occupancy rights in agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the sale of occupancy rights is pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, and whether the plaintiff, having claimed co-sharership in the property sold, possessed a superior right of pre-emption despite the High Court's finding that he failed to specifically plead co-tenancy. The Supreme Court held that occupancy rights fall within the definition of 'land' under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, and are thus subject to pre-emption. Regarding the pleadings, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s claim of being a co-sharer in the property sold was sufficiently explicit to cover his interest in the occupancy rights. The Court ruled that while the plaintiff could not claim a superior right over the entire Khata due to the nature of the allotment, he was entitled to pre-empt the sale specifically in respect of the Khasra number where he was a co-sharer. The principle established is that a pre-emptor may exercise a superior right of pre-emption over specific property where they are a co-sharer, provided the claim is clearly articulated in the pleadings.
Questions settled- Are occupancy rights considered 'land' subject to the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Does a co-sharer in a specific Khasra number have a superior right of pre-emption over the sale of occupancy rights in that same Khasra number?
- Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption based on co-sharership if the pleadings do not explicitly use the term 'co-tenant' but clearly assert co-ownership of the property sold?
- Does the allotment of specific portions of evacuee land create a joint tenancy or co-sharership among allottees of the same Khata?
- PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the termination of services of employees of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation due to the abolition of posts following the closure of the Shoe Section. The core legal question was whether the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applied to the Corporation’s employees and whether the termination orders were lawful. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the Corporation, as it is a statutory body and not a government department excluded by the proviso. However, the Court found that the termination of services was valid because the posts were genuinely abolished, and the employer is not obligated to retain employees when the underlying posts no longer exist. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the section was not closed was based on a misreading of evidence. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation (Dissolution) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 validated the Corporation's actions regarding transferred employees. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Appellate Tribunal, and restored the Labour Court’s decision.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of a statutory corporation?
- Can an employer terminate the services of a workman upon the genuine abolition of their post?
- Does the validation of actions by the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation (Dissolution) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 cover the termination of transferred employees?
- ABDUL REHMAN MAYAT Versus WEALTH TAX OFFICER1988 SCMR 1722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
- SALEEM-UD-DIN Versus JAMEEL AKHTAR PERVAIZ1988 SCMR 1717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a winding-up order passed under the Companies Act 1913 against Pak-Wheat Products Ltd., where the auction-purchaser of the company's flour mill allegedly committed flagrant breaches of the auction terms, including failing to furnish a bank guarantee and delaying installment payments. The appellants contended that the Company Judge erred in condoning these breaches and allowing the contract to subsist instead of rescinding it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court possessed the authority to condone such breaches and complete the sale. The Court held that under Sections 178 and 179 of the Companies Act 1913, the Company Judge is empowered to act in the best interests of all creditors and contributories. If the Court determines that maintaining the sale serves the parties' interests best, it may condone breaches of auction terms. Finding that the bulk of the consideration had been paid without timely objection from the appellants, the Court affirmed that the discretionary power was exercised properly and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a Company Judge conducting winding-up proceedings have the power to condone breaches of auction terms by a purchaser if it serves the best interests of the creditors and contributories?
- Can a contract for the sale of a company's assets under liquidation be rescinded after the bulk of the consideration has been accepted without timely objection from the stakeholders?
- What statutory provisions govern the duty of the Court to act in the best interests of interested parties during the disposal of assets of a company under liquidation?
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SARGODHA Versus ABDUR REHMAN1988 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the termination of a temporary employee of a statutory body, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a probationer, was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against termination, and whether the relationship between the Board and its employees is governed by statutory rules rather than the common law doctrine of master and servant. The Supreme Court held that the relationship is statutory, as the Board's regulations incorporate protections similar to those of Government servants. Consequently, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging such termination if statutory procedures are violated. However, on the facts, the Court found that the respondent was provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself through a preliminary inquiry and a show-cause notice process. The termination order, being a simple termination for unsatisfactory work and conduct rather than a dismissal for misconduct, complied with the applicable regulations. The Court established that while statutory employees are entitled to procedural fairness under their governing regulations, the specific requirements depend on the nature of the action taken.
Questions settled- Does the relationship between a statutory board and its employees fall under the doctrine of master and servant or is it governed by statutory rules?
- Can a civil court exercise jurisdiction over a suit challenging the termination of a statutory body's employee?
- Does the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work require the same formal inquiry as a dismissal for misconduct?
- When does the ouster of jurisdiction clause in a statute apply to actions taken by a statutory board?
- SAHIB NOOR Versus AHMAD1988 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit where the respondent, claiming a share in his deceased brother's estate, challenged a registered deed transferring land to the appellant (the deceased's widow) as dower. The respondent alleged the deed was fictitious but failed to provide specific particulars of fraud in his pleadings or seek formal cancellation of the registered instrument. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit in the respondent's favor, ignoring the appellant's objections regarding the form of the suit and the lack of specific fraud allegations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent was required to seek cancellation of the registered deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the failure to plead particulars of fraud under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was fatal to the suit. The Court held that because the deed was voidable rather than void ab initio, the respondent was required to seek its cancellation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that general allegations of fraud are insufficient; specific particulars must be pleaded. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a plaintiff required to seek cancellation of a registered deed if the instrument is voidable rather than void ab initio?
- Does a general allegation of fraud in a pleading satisfy the requirements of Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Must a successor-in-interest seek the avoidance of an instrument that constitutes an impediment to their claim?
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the murder conviction of the respondent Sardar Muhammad under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while acquitting a co-accused of the murder charge. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life based on extenuating circumstances arising from a sudden fight, where the deceased was allegedly attacking an elderly family member. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the sentence reduction and the appreciation of evidence by the High Court. The holding of the Court is to grant leave to examine whether the discretion in withholding the normal penalty of death was correctly exercised under the circumstances of a sudden occurrence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a case of a sudden fight?
- Can a court rely upon the statement of an acquitted co-accused to determine the immediate cause of an occurrence?
- Whether the application of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is warranted when an accused acts independently during a sudden quarrel?
- JANNAT BIBI Versus SHER MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by a widow seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of her 1/4th share in her deceased husband's estate under Muslim Personal Law. The husband died in 1944, and the parties had entered into a family arrangement where the widow held land in one village while the respondents held land in three other villages. Following the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, which terminated limited estates held by Muslim females under custom, the widow claimed her statutory 1/4th share as a Muslim law heir. The respondents argued the suit was time-barred due to their adverse possession over the three villages for more than 12 years. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that any adverse possession prior to 1962 could only prescribe against the widow's limited life estate, not against her full ownership rights which only accrued in 1962 by operation of law. Consequently, the suit filed in 1966 was well within the limitation period.
Questions settled- What is the effect of adverse possession against a female limited owner holding a life estate under customary law once that limited estate is terminated by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- Does the limitation period for a Muslim female heir to claim her statutory share under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 run from the date of the last owner's actual death or from the enforcement of the Act?
- What is the burden of proof required to establish the relinquishment of immovable property rights by a pardahnashin woman?
- MUHAMMAD JEE Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHAUQ '1988 SCMR 1691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from an order of the High Court setting aside an acquittal and remanding a case for retrial. The appellants were originally charged with offences under sections 342 and 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged forcible occupation of a 'Baithak' and illegal confinement. The trial court acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, contradictory, and based on interested witnesses, while noting the absence of independent corroboration. The High Court reversed this, citing improper appreciation of evidence and failure to consider certain documents. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court exercised its discretion correctly in ordering a retrial. The Court held that the High Court's order was unjustified, as the trial court had fairly appraised the evidence and provided cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that retrials should not be ordered merely to allow a different judicial opinion on evidence already properly assessed. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that a retrial in such circumstances would cause injustice and undermine the benefit of the doubt already extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an appellate court to order a retrial in a criminal case?
- Does the failure of a trial court to consider specific documents in its appreciation of evidence automatically justify an order for retrial?
- Should a retrial be ordered when the prosecution's case rests on the testimony of interested witnesses whose evidence has already been found unreliable by the trial court?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a decision by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the allotment of 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land. The land was originally allotted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee in 1963 and confirmed in 1966. The petitioners claimed the land based on an alleged earlier allotment in 1966, which they sought to enforce by having the respondent's transfer cancelled. The Settlement Commissioner, however, found that the petitioners' claim was based on tampered records and forged signatures from revenue officials, and that the land had already been validly confirmed to the respondent. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging this finding. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was invalid due to the prior allotment to the refugee and the established finding that the petitioners' own allotment documents were tainted by forgery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that an allotment based on forged documents cannot be sustained against a valid prior claim.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land be sustained when it is based on forged documents and tampered records?
- Does a prior valid allotment of land to a refugee preclude a subsequent claim by another party?
- Is a finding of fact regarding forgery by a Settlement Commissioner binding in writ jurisdiction?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- ALAUDDIN Versus ABDUL RAHEEM1988 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF HAIDER Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM ARA Versus ABDUL QADIR1988 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1988 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN1988 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus M. KHADIM HUSSAIN KHALID1988 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI JAVED BOKHARI Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER SIALKOT.1988 SCMR 1680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- NANKI Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
- ALAMDAR HUSSAIN Versus I.-G. POLICE1988 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- BASHIR MUHAMMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION1988 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHOKHAR Versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHAH Versus SARDARAN BIBI1988 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHIRAGH DIN Versus PAKISTANA1988 SCMR 1674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ AHMAD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORITY1988 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus MASUD AKHTAR1988 SCMR 1672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMED QURESHI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning an evacuee property in Lahore, originally allotted to the appellant in 1962. The property was subsequently resumed in 1971 due to alleged non-payment of the transfer price, and thereafter transferred to the respondent, who obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The appellant challenged the resumption and transfer through a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which was accepted. However, the Lahore High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order via a writ petition, holding that the revision was time-barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act without an application for condonation of delay, and that the property had validly passed out of the compensation pool upon the issuance of the P.T.D. The Supreme Court considered the rival claims and the conduct of the parties, noting that the appellant failed to clear the transfer price despite encashing his compensation book. Ultimately, based on a concession made by the respondent, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by dividing the property according to the respective portions in physical possession of each party.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition filed against a property resumption order without an accompanying application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is maintainable?
- Does a property cease to be part of the compensation pool after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Can a settlement commissioner interfere with the transfer of evacuee property in favor of a third party who has obtained a P.T.D. without alleging fraud or misrepresentation?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN1988 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional Petition filed by Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. The Bank sought to set aside orders from the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had declared the respondent, a former Branch Manager, to be a 'workman' entitled to seek relief under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a Branch Manager, given his supervisory duties and power of attorney, qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums, noting that the determination of whether an employee is a 'workman' is primarily a question of fact based on the nature of duties performed. The Court observed that the appellant failed to produce evidence regarding the respondent's specific duties to substantiate the claim that he was an employer rather than a workman. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent was entitled to invoke the grievance procedure.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether an employee is a 'workman' a question of fact or law?
- Can a Branch Manager of a bank be considered a 'workman' for the purposes of filing a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an employee's status in a constitutional appeal?
- AKRAM KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court examines whether the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to deposit process fees, and whether the appellate and revisional courts erred in ignoring the binding precedent of the Peshawar High Court in Shahzullah v. Shahabuddin. The core legal question concerned the legality of penalizing a party for non-payment of process fees in light of the North-West Frontier Province Ordinance No.XIV of 1978 and rules regarding process fees. The Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Shahzullah's case was correct, meaning the plaintiff was not required to furnish process fees and could not be penalized under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that process fee rules must be interpreted consistently with statutory exemptions, and a court cannot dismiss a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 for non-compliance with an illegal or unwarranted order to deposit process fees.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be penalized under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to deposit process fees when such fees are not legally chargeable?
- Does the North-West Frontier Province Ordinance No.XIV of 1978 exempt litigants from paying process fees in civil cases?
- Whether an appellate or revisional court is bound to consider a cited High Court precedent raised in the grounds of challenge?
- BAHADUR KHAN Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK1988 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir settled in Sialkot District. The appellants filed a Mukhbari application alleging that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Chiragh Din, had obtained double allotments in two different villages. While the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in one village based on this allegation, the Settlement Commissioner later found as a matter of fact that there were two distinct individuals named Chiragh Din, thereby negating the double allotment claim. Despite this finding, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on technical grounds regarding a cancelled Ration Card. The Lahore High Court subsequently set aside these orders, ruling that the allotment fell under the specific category of the Scheme for allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's decision was correct and that the legal precedent cited by the appellants regarding the cancellation of allotments on Mukhbari applications was factually inapplicable to the present case, as no double allotment existed.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land to a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir be cancelled on the basis of a Mukhbari application if the allegation of double allotment is factually disproven?
- Does the existence of two different individuals with the same name and parentage preclude a finding of double allotment by settlement authorities?
- Is a High Court justified in restoring an allotment if the settlement authorities' cancellation order was based on a flawed factual premise regarding the identity of the allottee?
- SHAFIQUE AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, CIVIL JUDGE1988 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus IKRAMUL HAQ1988 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three petitions for special leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the transaction through which the vendees acquired ownership of the estate constituted a gift, as claimed by the respondents, or a sale, as asserted by the petitioners, and whether the lower appellate court erred in its determination of this nature. The trial court had initially found the transaction to be a sale; however, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, concluding it was a gift. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, refused to interfere with this factual determination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Additional District Judge had properly examined the evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Court affirmed that the nature of the transaction was a pure question of fact, and since the lower appellate court's finding did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the High Court was correct in declining to interfere with that finding in revision. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a gift or a sale considered a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by an appellate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a finding of fact by an appellate court that is based on an examination of evidence and circumstances warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD1988 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus NIAZ ALI1988 SCMR 1652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN Versus GHULAM FATIMA1988 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the State's appeal, setting aside the trial court's conviction under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and convicting the appellant Zahoor Ahmad under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, sentencing him to death. The core legal question involved whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of murder and convicting them of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and whether mitigating circumstances existed for the award of a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly altered the conviction to murder under section 302/34, as the attack was premeditated, without sudden provocation, and the right of self-defence was not available. The court laid down the principle that where an accused persists in unlawful advances, attacks a parent who reproaches such conduct, and causes fatal injuries with a lethal weapon to a vital artery, no leniency or mitigating circumstance exists to warrant a lesser penalty than death.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code to section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does an accused who inflicts fatal injuries with a sharp-edged weapon after being reproached for misconduct qualify for the right of private defence?
- Whether the passage of a long period of time since the commission of the offence constitutes a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty in a murder case?
- THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1988 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed a direct appeal seeking the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, a minor aged about sixteen years, who was convicted under section 377 and section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of sodomy that resulted in the death of an eight-year-old victim. The core legal question was whether the sentence awarded for sodomy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be enhanced or made consecutive rather than concurrent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no legal error was committed by the trial court in sentencing the respondent to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for both offenses, and declined to interfere with the concurrent running of the sentences given that the death was an unintended consequence of the primary act of sodomy. The key principle laid down is that where death results as an unintended consequence of sodomy, the offense properly falls under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appellate interference with concurrent sentences is unwarranted if the trial court exercised its discretion soundly.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence awarded under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants enhancement to the maximum term when the act results in the death of the victim?
- Should sentences for sodomy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder run consecutively or concurrently?
- Whether an unintended death resulting from an act of sodomy constitutes an offense under section 302 or section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- SYED NUR RIAHI GARDEZI Versus MIAN NASIM MUSLIM1988 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus MUMTAZ JEHAN1988 SCMR 1646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
- SUGHRAN BIBI Versus TAJA1988 SCMR 1645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- RAHM DIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus FATEH BEGUM1988 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH ALIAS GULLU Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 directed against the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the charges of sodomy and sexual assault on a minor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the medical and ocular evidence clearly proved the commission of the offense, and even suggested that a charge of rape was made out on the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on sound medical and ocular evidence in heinous offenses against minors warrant no interference by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal lies under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 against a conviction passed by a Special Court?
- Does the presence of tear marks, congestion, and tenderness of the anus sufficiently establish an offense under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with well-considered findings of fact by a trial court supported by reliable medical and ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
- MEHR DIN Versus NAZIR AHMAD1988 SCMR 1637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- JAFAR HUSSAIN Versus SAID AHMAD1988 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- GHUIAM SABIR Versus GHULAM NABI1988 SCMR 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus ALLAH BAKHSH1988 SCMR 1633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →