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.
- MUHAMMAD YAMEEN Versus NIAMAT ALI1988 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1988 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD Versus ALLAH WASAYA1988 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus ABDUR REHMAN1988 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH Versus RAHIM BAKHSH1988 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- LAL KHATOON Versus RAHIM BAKHSH1988 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1988 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM Versus MEHTAB AHMAD1988 SCMR 1402 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKAR1988 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH1988 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- SAMI ULLAH, MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS SHIFA MEDICO (REGD.) Versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN ABDALI1988 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus NOOR AHMAD1988 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA1988 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR1988 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN1988 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- SAIFUL KHAN Versus FIYAZ ALI KHANA1988 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- NAZIR Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA1988 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- BAGH ALI Versus ASADULLAH KHAN1988 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- ALIMUDDIN Versus MEHR DIN1988 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ Versus MUHAMMAD SHER1988 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ Versus KHURSHID ALAM1988 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MAIRAJ DIN1988 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADAZEEM ALIAS MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICTJUDGE-I, MUZAFFARGARH1988 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE CHAUDHRY Versus ABDUL HAMID1988 SCMR 1385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning the interpretation of the words "Deh" or "Mauza" in the context of pre-emption rights, specifically whether alleging ownership in the "Deh" satisfies the requirement of being an owner in the estate. The core legal question addressed is whether "Deh" and "Mauza" are synonymous with the term "estate". The Supreme Court held that "Deh" and "Mauza" are indeed the Urdu equivalents for the word "estate", as supported by the Land Record Manual. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the view of the High Court that ownership in the Deh constitutes ownership in the estate for pre-emption purposes. The key principle laid down is that the terms "Deh", "Mauza", "Mahal", and "estate" are interchangeable in revenue and pre-emption jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether the words "Deh" and "Mauza" are equivalent to the word "estate"?
- Does alleging ownership in the Deh satisfy the requirement of being an owner in the estate for pre-emption?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus KHALIL-UR-REHMAN1988 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the notification declaring the petitioner successful in the District Council, Abbottabad election for Ward No.2. The High Court had exercised constitutional jurisdiction and set aside the election on the ground that voting at one polling station was disturbed, postponed, and ballot boxes removed. The core legal questions examine whether Rule 42 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979 and Section 39-A of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance bar a challenge to an election by means other than an election petition, whether an election petition constituted an adequate alternative remedy where controverted questions of fact existed, and whether a writ petitioner who participated in removing ballot boxes is entitled to discretionary constitutional relief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, confirmed the interim order, and directed the matter to be heard on the present record.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 42 of N.-W.F.P. Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979 and section 39-A of N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance prohibit a challenge to the election by means other than an Election Petition?
- Whether an election petition was an adequate alternative remedy when pending petitions and controverted questions of fact were involved?
- Whether a writ petitioner whose agents or supporters removed ballot boxes becomes disentitled to discretionary constitutional relief?
- AZAD Versus KARAM KHAN1988 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 100 Kanals 16 Marlas located in Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock. The respondent brought the suit for possession claiming a superior right of pre-emption as an owner in the estate and co-sharer. The trial court found the respondent to be an owner in the estate but dismissed the suit for failure to pay the requisite court-fee within the limitation period. The appellate court affirmed this decision. However, on revision, the High Court allowed the suit, holding that the late deposit of court-fee was not fatal. The petitioner challenged this decree before the Supreme Court on the ground that the right of pre-emption based on being an owner in the estate was no longer available following the Islamic principles laid down in Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) and subsequent decisions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decree, holding that the suit could not have been decreed on the basis of being an owner in the estate, thereby dismissing the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit based on being an owner in the estate can be decreed following the Supreme Court's declaration of law in Said Kamal Shah's case?
- Whether the High Court erred in decreeing a pre-emption suit where the right claimed as an owner in the estate was no longer legally available?
- NIMATULLAH Versus GHULAM RASUL1988 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH1988 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions seeking enhancement of sentences and leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning convictions for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involve the justification for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life and the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly weighed and sifted the evidence without violating any rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that justifiable grounds existed for reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life. Consequently, both the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement and the convict's jail petition for leave to appeal were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's appraisal of evidence or the exercise of sentencing discretion unless a clear legal infirmity or violation of evidentiary rules is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence in criminal cases without proof of a legal infirmity?
- Can a sentence of death be altered to imprisonment for life when justifiable grounds exist?
- Whether the concurrent findings of the High Court regarding lesser sentences warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMADAMIN Versus BALQEES BEGUM.1988 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus INAYAT MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus ALLAH RAKHA1988 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD KASHIF IKRAM1988 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus GUL MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH Versus LAL MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
- ZUBAIDA BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN1988 SCMR 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- PATHANA Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1988 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMANA1988 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR SAMAND Versus ISMAILY1988 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI1988 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- RASHID Versus ALI HASSAN1988 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1988 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- GHIAS-UD-DIN Versus FALAK SHERRI1988 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five review petitions filed against a common judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 29th October 1986, which arose from connected civil appeals. The petitioners sought review on the grounds that the Court failed to consider certain documents and arguments regarding the cancellation of property transfer orders and the classification of the disputed land as non-evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could introduce new factual pleas and re-argue the merits of the case within the scope of review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the alleged documents were not part of the record before the trial court or the appellate courts, and that the petitioners were attempting to set up an entirely new case not previously pleaded. The Court affirmed the principle that review proceedings are not a forum for re-arguing an appeal afresh or for introducing new factual contentions that were not raised or substantiated in the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds to exercise its review jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce new factual pleas in review proceedings that were not raised in the lower courts?
- Is it permissible to re-argue an appeal on its merits within the scope of review proceedings?
- Does the failure to consider documents not present on the trial record constitute a ground for review?
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III,SAHIWAL1988 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Karachi Development Authority against the dismissal of its constitutional petition by the Sind High Court. The petitioner, a statutory corporation, manufactured R.C.C. pipes exclusively for its own statutory water and sewerage obligations. Initially, the Central Board of Revenue declared these pipes non-taxable under sales tax laws, but later cancelled that view and demanded tax. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the earlier letter did not constitute a statutory exemption creating a vested right. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the pipes were not subject to tax and that the petitioner functioned as a department of the Provincial Government, rendering its goods immune from taxation under the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that an important constitutional question was raised regarding whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are the property of the Provincial Government and thus immune from taxation, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether goods produced by a statutory corporation can be regarded as the property of the Provincial Government and thus immune from taxation under the Constitution?
- Does a departmental clarification declaring goods non-taxable create a vested right of exemption?
- Can tax authorities withdraw a previous departmental interpretation or declaration regarding non-taxability of goods?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus AURANGZEB1988 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-04Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ Versus GENERAL MANAGER (LEAF), PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD1988 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by a seasonal worker challenges the judgment of the High Court which had set aside the reinstatement order passed by the labour forums. The appellant was dismissed from service after a domestic inquiry found him guilty of attempting to assault a manager. The core legal question was whether a second show-cause notice and the supply of a copy of the inquiry report were mandatory requirements before imposing a penalty under the relevant labour laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither a second show-cause notice nor the supply of the inquiry report is an absolute requirement under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, nor is it universally mandated by principles of natural justice, provided a fair opportunity of hearing and defense is extended. The Court clarified that earlier rulings requiring such steps were specific to government servants governed by distinct statutory rules and did not apply uniformly to industrial workers under the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Whether the supply of a copy of the inquiry report is a mandatory requirement before imposing a penalty on a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is a second show-cause notice required to be given to an industrial worker prior to dismissal under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the failure to supply an inquiry report automatically violate the principles of natural justice in industrial employment disciplinary proceedings?
- AURANGZEB,BIBI Versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's first appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller directing her eviction from the disputed property under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent, bona fide personal use, and denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner contested the proceedings by denying tenancy, asserting title issues, claiming the property was evacuee property, and belatedly arguing that she had re-occupied the premises as a trespasser following a previous execution. The core legal question concerned the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the validity of the eviction orders. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the rejection of the petitioner's factual pleas were well-founded on the evidence and raised no substantial question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down that factual concurrent findings regarding tenancy in rent matters, supported by record evidence, do not warrant interference under constitutional/appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the eviction order when the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a plea of forcible re-occupation as a trespasser, raised outside the pleadings and contradicted by official reports, invalidate tenancy proceedings?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding title automatically stay rent restriction proceedings where interim injunctions have been refused?
- SHER MAST KHAN Versus AFZAL1988 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition filed against the acquittal of seven respondents. The respondents were originally charged under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf and causing injuries to a prosecution witness. Following a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, acquitted all respondents, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The petitioner subsequently challenged this acquittal in the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the record and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The Court determined that the petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law that would necessitate intervention or a decision by the Supreme Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the acquittal of the respondents as decided by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal require the presence of a substantial question of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment if no legal error is demonstrated by the petitioner?
- MUNIR AHMAD Versus FAROOQ AHMAD1988 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the writ petition filed by the respondents against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal dispute relates to the validity of competing deeds of association executed by the auction purchaser of a shop in respect of transfer and adjustment of bid money from compensation books under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that where an associate had exhausted his compensation book and could not meet the adjustment of the bid money, his association was rightly disallowed by the department, whereas the subsequent associate whose compensation book was duly utilized and in whose favour a Provisional Transfer Order was issued had accrued valid vested rights in the property. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in interfering with these accrued rights, consequently allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment, and restoring the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
Questions settled- Whether an association deed can be accepted when a party has exhausted the entire deferred payment and compensation book?
- Can subsequent proceedings and orders deprive a party of valid vested rights already accrued in property?
- Did the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere with the accrued vested rights of an auction associate?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS Versus COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SIALKOT1988 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- LABHA Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a vendee and defendant in a pre-emption matter, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed his civil revision concerning the question of court-fee. The core legal question revolved around the payment of a deficient court-fee and the dismissal of the respondent's suit on that ground. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the question regarding court-fee already stood concluded against the petitioners by a previous judgment of the Court in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 S C 289). Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, establishing that the settled precedent on court-fee deficiencies governs the matter.
Questions settled- Does a deficiency in court-fee warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption suit in light of settled precedent?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the question regarding court-fee stands already concluded by a previous judgment of the Supreme Court?
- TAJ DIN Versus SHAKOOR AHMAD1988 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus SHUKRIA PARVEEN1988 SCMR 1343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- KAISER ZAMANI Versus RASHID BEGUM1988 SCMR 1342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR1988 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Versus MST. SARDAR BIBI1988 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by vendees/defendants against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their civil revision in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a suit wherein the trial court decreed pre-emption and directed payment of a disputed pre-emption amount constituted a compromise decree, thereby barring an appeal and stripping the appellate court of jurisdiction to extend time for depositing the pre-emption money. The Supreme Court held that the case was not one of a compromise decree, as the suit had been vigorously contested and the agreement regarding the payment amount was seriously disputed by the pre-emptors. Furthermore, because a stay order had prevented the pre-emptors from depositing the money within the originally specified time, the appellate court lawfully possessed jurisdiction to grant an extension for the deposit. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that a disputed agreement on a collateral matter during a contested trial does not convert a judgment into a consent decree.
Questions settled- Does a disputed agreement regarding the payment of pre-emption money in a contested suit render the resulting decree a compromise decree?
- Is an appeal barred against a pre-emption decree where the parties disputed the amount payable rather than entering into a genuine compromise?
- Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to grant further time for the deposit of pre-emption money when the appellant was prevented from paying by a stay order?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus ANWAR ALI1988 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the correctness of certain entries in the Khasra Girdawari. The Revenue authorities up to the Board of Revenue had rejected the petitioner's challenge regarding the accuracy of these entries, and the High Court subsequently refused to interfere with the orders of the Revenue authorities in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the orders of the Revenue authorities and the High Court concerning the validity of the Khasra Girdawari entries called for interference. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit matter for its intervention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. Although inclined to award costs, the Supreme Court refrained from imposing costs on the petitioner solely because the contesting respondent had passed away during the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with revenue authority findings regarding entries in Khasra Girdawari?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed without costs due to the death of the contesting respondent?
- DOST ALI SHAH Versus SHAUKAT ALI SHAH1988 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1988 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus KANEEZ BEGUM1988 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his civil revision regarding a decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The respondent wife had successfully obtained a decree for the return of dowry articles or their monetary value, a decision affirmed by the District Judge in appeal and subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The petitioner sought to challenge these concurrent findings, arguing that the courts below misunderstood the legal position regarding the return of dowry and improperly relied on the testimony of his father, whom he alleged was an interested witness due to familial animosity. The Supreme Court, upon review, determined that the arguments raised by the petitioner pertained solely to concurrent findings of fact. Finding no legal infirmity or justification for interference with the lower courts' decisions, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the finality of the concurrent factual determinations made by the courts below.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a family matter regarding the recovery of dowry articles?
- Is the testimony of a father considered inherently unreliable in a suit for dowry recovery due to prior marital discord between the parents?
- Does a misunderstanding of the factual position regarding the return of dowry articles constitute a valid ground for Supreme Court interference in a civil revision?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus NASREEN1988 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ1988 SCMR 1335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ1988 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
- HASSAN KHAN Versus ZAHEERULLAH1988 SCMR 1333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a father challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld his liability to pay maintenance for his minor children. The petitioner contested the maintenance amount as excessive and argued that the appellate order was barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the factual determinations regarding the maintenance amount, declining to interfere with the High Court's decision. Regarding the plea of res judicata, the Court held that the doctrine does not apply when the judgment relied upon arises from the same proceedings, specifically where cross-appeals against the same order are disposed of at different stages. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. Furthermore, the Court directed that if the petitioner failed to comply with the interim maintenance deposit order, the arrears must be recovered immediately by attaching his salary, without prejudice to other recovery methods.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply when cross-appeals against the same order are disposed of at different stages of the same proceedings?
- Can a court order the attachment of salary to recover maintenance arrears if interim deposit orders were not complied with?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus ANWAR ALI1988 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against an order of the Service Tribunal. The respondent, employed as a Lower Division Clerk by WAPDA, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. While the Service Tribunal found that there was sufficient material before the Authority to make the impugned removal order, it nevertheless converted the order of removal into one of retirement with consequential retiring benefits, taking into account the respondent's twelve years of service. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal acted in proper exercise of its jurisdiction in altering the penalty of removal to retirement despite finding sufficient material to justify the initial order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction in modifying the penalty.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can convert an order of removal from service into an order of retirement after finding sufficient material to justify the removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Does the Service Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to mitigate a penalty lawfully imposed by the competent authority under the WAPDA Act on compassionate grounds such as length of service?
- MUHAMMADI Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1988 SCMR 1329 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KYANI Versus PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES BOARD, WAH CANTT1988 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for the allotment of a plot in an extension scheme at Wah Cantt. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was eligible for allotment under paragraph 3(c) of the relevant housing scheme, given that he already owned a plot or house in Wah Cantt., and whether a subsequent Board resolution dated 10-10-1984 removed this ineligibility retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly disqualified under paragraph 3(c) and that the minutes of the Board relied upon by the petitioner were merely recommendatory, lacked necessary approval, and could not operate retrospectively. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unapproved recommendations cannot alter eligibility criteria.
Questions settled- Whether an applicant owning property in a cantonment is eligible for plot allotment under paragraph 3(c) of the housing scheme?
- Do unapproved board minutes or recommendations have retrospective effect to alter eligibility criteria?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the refusal of a plot allotment when the applicant is disqualified under the governing rules?
- AZIZUDDIN KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN P.O.F., BOARD WAH CANTT1988 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Ordnance Factory, applied for and was provisionally allotted a plot in the Lala Rukh Colony Scheme, Wah Cantt. The allotment was subsequently cancelled because the petitioner already owned a residential plot in Islamabad, which violated paragraph 3(c) of the Daily Order Part I issued by the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board barring individuals owning property in any housing scheme in Pakistan from allotment. After his representation was rejected by the Cantonment Board, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the declaration in his application only barred prior allotments in Defence Housing Schemes or Cantonments, and that paragraph 3(c) did not apply because his Islamabad plot was acquired on payment of market value to the Capital Development Authority rather than through a scheme. The Supreme Court found that these contentions required examination and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does ownership of a plot acquired from the Capital Development Authority on payment of market value violate a bar against owning property in any housing scheme in Pakistan?
- Can provisional allotment of a plot in a housing scheme be cancelled on the ground of prior ownership of residential property elsewhere?
- What is the scope and applicability of eligibility conditions restricting plot allotments to individuals already owning property in housing schemes?
- PIR MUHAMMAD Versus BARKAT ALI1988 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1887-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of land to a displaced person. The appellant, a claimant displaced person, challenged the cancellation of his temporary allotment of land (Khasra No.16) and its subsequent allotment to the respondent, Barkat Ali. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as a prior temporary allottee of the estate, held a superior right to the land compared to the respondent, whose claim was transferred to the same location at a later date. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s grievance was genuine, noting that the initial temporary allotment in his favor had become final due to the absence of objections within the statutory fifteen-day period prescribed by the Rehabilitation Land Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower authorities' orders and restored the allotment to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that a prior temporary allottee of an estate, whose allotment has not been challenged within the prescribed statutory period, acquires a vested right that takes precedence over subsequent claimants whose claims are transferred to the same estate later.
Questions settled- Does a prior temporary allottee of an estate have preference over a respondent whose claim was transferred to the same estate at a later date?
- What is the legal effect of failing to file an objection against a temporary land allotment within the fifteen-day period required under the Rehabilitation Land Settlement Scheme?
- SHER ALI Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-26Read full judgment →
- AZHAR-HUSSAIN SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1988 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil suit challenging the alienation of agricultural land by the respondent's predecessor-in-interest. The respondents, minor sons of the vendor, sought a declaration that the 1964 sale of land would not affect their reversionary rights after the vendor's demise, alleging the transaction was illegal under custom. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the High Court allowed the respondents' appeal, setting aside the dismissal and remanding the case for a decision on merits. The appellants challenged this remand before the Supreme Court, arguing that the suit was incompetent under the relevant statutory framework. The Supreme Court examined the contention in light of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 (as amended by Ordinance XIII of 1983), and relevant precedents. The Court held that the High Court's order remanding the case was contrary to the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit, affirming that the declaratory suit regarding reversionary rights was incompetent.
Questions settled- Is a suit seeking a declaration regarding reversionary rights against a sale of land competent under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975?
- Can a High Court remand a suit for trial on merits if the underlying cause of action is barred by statute?
- ABDUL HAMID SAQFI Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition and associated applications arose from a judgment in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1982 concerning the seniority and promotion of Selection Grade Clerks. The review petitioner sought to re-argue points regarding the maintenance of separate seniority lists and preferential promotion rights, and also filed a contempt application regarding delayed implementation of the judgment, alongside an application seeking clarification to limit the operation of the judgment to parties to the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the review power cannot be invoked for a rehearing of matters already thoroughly discussed and decided. Furthermore, a delay of five months in implementing the judgment did not warrant contempt proceedings, and a clarification limiting the operation of the judgment could not be granted given the constitutional duty of all executive and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution. The petitions and applications were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained for the rehearing of a matter already considered and decided by the court?
- Does a delay of five months in implementing a judgment of the Supreme Court constitute grounds for contempt proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court limit the operation and effect of its judgment to the parties to the proceedings, excluding non-parties from its consequential effects, in light of Article 190 of the Constitution?
- SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE Versus BASHIR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD IMRAN BUTT1988 SCMR 1314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus FAZAL ELLAHI1988 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD-OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR DIN Versus MUMTAZ JEHAN1988 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner for murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The petitioner and his brother were tried for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged the petitioner shot the deceased, while the defence claimed the deceased was killed during a scuffle while attempting to rape the petitioner's sister. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence and its refusal to accept the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the High Court was justified in relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, rejecting the defence plea, and exercising its discretion to commute the death sentence based on the motive of family honour. The Court affirmed that where the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence and no violation of criminal justice principles occurred, the conviction and sentence will be upheld.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation is sustainable when the evidence supports a premeditated act of murder?
- Is the High Court justified in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the motive of family honour?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a conviction where the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence and no legal infirmity is shown?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus LAL DIN1988 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD AHSAN1988 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the eviction of the petitioners (tenants) from a shop under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, based on the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlord was justified in amending his eviction application to include the ground of personal requirement after his own eviction from a previously rented business premises. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no misreading of evidence. The Court held that a landlord is entitled to seek possession of their own property for business purposes, particularly after being evicted from rented premises. The Court further affirmed that allowing an amendment to include the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of proceedings is permissible to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were granted two months to vacate the premises upon their undertaking.
Questions settled- Is a landlord entitled to amend an eviction application to include the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of proceedings?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant from his own property after being evicted from a previously rented business premises?
- Does the inclusion of a new ground for eviction via amendment constitute an unjustified afterthought if the landlord's circumstances have changed?
- RAZZAQ AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD AJMAL1988 SCMR 1306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the evidence of deep-seated enmity between the parties, the acquittal of co-accused based on the same evidence, and the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution withheld material details, the evidence was tainted by prior hostility, and the dying declaration lacked the necessary independent corroboration, especially since the deceased had a history of filing false cases. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case is disbelieved against co-accused based on identical evidence, the same benefit of doubt must be extended to the remaining accused, and that a dying declaration from an inimical source requires independent corroboration to be reliable.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be relied upon without independent corroboration when the deceased and the accused had a history of intense enmity?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused?
- Is the mere recovery of an unlicenced weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction without ballistic evidence or other corroboration?
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR1988 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their constitutional petition as infructuous. The petitioners had been granted land under a Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme, but were refused proprietary rights for a portion of the land, which authorities claimed was reserved under a different scheme. While the constitutional petition was pending, the High Court directed the District Collector to determine the petitioners' entitlement. The Collector subsequently issued an order granting proprietary rights for certain areas but excluding others. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, noting that the petitioners' grievance regarding the specific exclusion could be agitated through appropriate departmental appeals or revisions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the original purpose of the constitutional petition—to compel the authorities to determine entitlement—had been fulfilled. The Court held that since the Collector had passed an order, the petitioners must exhaust their departmental remedies rather than seeking premature adjudication of the merits of the exclusion in constitutional proceedings. Leave to appeal was refused, as the High Court correctly left the petitioners to pursue available statutory remedies.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed as infructuous once the administrative authority has passed an order determining the petitioner's entitlement?
- Should a court adjudicate the merits of a land allotment dispute when departmental remedies are available to the aggrieved party?
- Is a constitutional petition the appropriate forum to challenge the exclusion of specific land from proprietary rights when an administrative determination has already been made?
- HUSSAIN SHAH Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular testimony, recovery of weapons, and motive. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions and improvements. The Court noted that the eye-witnesses' accounts were inconsistent regarding the lighting conditions (electric light versus torch light) and that the presence of certain witnesses was doubtful. Furthermore, the Court held that the recovery of weapons lacked corroborative value because the firearms were not sent to a ballistic expert for analysis. Additionally, the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses weakened the case. The Court affirmed that when ocular evidence is unreliable and recoveries are not forensically linked to the crime, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, justifying the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a weapon have corroborative value in a murder case if it is not sent to a ballistic expert for analysis?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between eye-witness accounts regarding the circumstances of identification?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce key witnesses weaken the case against the accused?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus SULEMAN1988 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition which challenged an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding a disputed property. The core legal question involved whether the Settlement Commissioner could validly interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate settlement authorities regarding fraud and interpolation in transfer documents. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner—establishing that the property in dispute had been fraudulently interpolated into the respondent's transfer documents and validly auctioned and transferred to the appellant—were wrongly set aside by the Settlement Commissioner without lawful authority or proper consideration of the evidence. The Court laid down the principle that revisional authorities cannot lightly or arbitrarily set aside well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact based on physical inspection and documentary evidence concerning record tampering and fraudulent transfer entries.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate settlement authorities regarding record interpolation?
- Whether transfer documents obtained through fraudulent interpolation confer any lawful title upon the holder?
- Is a revisional authority justified in setting aside concurrent factual findings without adverting to the evidence on record?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-28Read full judgment →
- FAIZUDDIN AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1988 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and decreed respondent No. 1's suit regarding agricultural land originally allotted as evacuee property. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of civil courts to challenge orders passed under land settlement laws and the propriety of the High Court deciding the suit itself after finding in favor of jurisdiction, rather than remanding it. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, competently cancelled an allotment obtained through fraud and forgeries, and that section 25 of the same Act expressly ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters. Consequently, the High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction and setting aside the administrative order. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the subject-matter of a suit relating to the transfer of property under land settlement laws?
- Whether the High Court should remand the case for proper trial and decision or decide it itself when a plaint has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to cancel an allotment obtained by means of fraud or false representation under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- FALAK SHER Versus MEHTAB BIBI1988 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus NASRIN ASHRAF1988 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SANAULLAH Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS1988 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1988 SCMR 1285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- RAHMAT ALI Versus ABDULLAH1988 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a civil matter where the two respondents were found to have died well before the hearing, one on 2-8-1983 and the other on 28-8-1986. The core legal question was whether the appellant's delay in filing an application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondents could be condoned based on the explanation that the parties resided in different villages. The court held that the explanation was unacceptable because the record showed all parties actually resided in the same village, and consequently rejected the application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that an application for bringing legal representatives on record filed out of time cannot be condoned on factually incorrect grounds regarding the parties' residence, resulting in the dismissal of the improperly constituted appeal.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives can be condoned on the ground of different residences when the record shows otherwise?
- What is the effect on an appeal when applications to implead legal representatives of deceased respondents are time-barred and rejected?