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.
- NASIM KHAN Versus RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus RAMZAN1988 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-04Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/ MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE Versus K.M. SANA1988 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the dispute over the transfer of excess land attached to a bungalow in Lahore under settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether a third party whose claim had been finally rejected possessed the locus standi to challenge demarcation and transfer proceedings, and how the excess land should be disposed of in light of previous judicial finality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's measurement order, as the contesting respondent had accepted the measurement and previous final orders had already established that the excess land was to be transferred to the transferee of the main bungalow rather than disposed of by public auction, while the opposing party lacked locus standi. The key principle laid down is that once settlement authorities exercise discretion regarding the transfer of excess property and such discretion is upheld by the apex court, third parties without a subsisting claim lack standing to challenge subsequent implementation proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a person whose claim for the transfer of property has been finally rejected have the locus standi to object to the transfer of excess area to another?
- Whether the disposal of excess settlement land in accordance with law includes its transfer to the primary transferee pursuant to earlier final judicial pronouncements?
- Can the High Court interfere with demarcation proceedings accepted by the contesting parties and concluded by the competent settlement authority?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, LAHORE Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus HARJINA SALT CHEMICALS (PAK.) LTD.1988 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- IZHARUL HAQ Versus QASIM ALI1988 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the ejectment of the appellant from a shop in Pind Dadan Khan. The landlord sought ejectment on grounds including personal requirement for his son. While the Rent Controller ordered ejectment, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, ruling the requirement was not bona fide. The High Court subsequently restored the Rent Controller's order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the appellate court regarding the bona fide personal requirement of the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in restoring the ejectment order. The Court reasoned that the appellate court had ignored sufficient evidence supporting the landlord's claim, and the son's absence as a witness did not invalidate the plea. The judgment affirms that if the landlord fails to occupy the premises as required, the tenant retains the statutory right to seek restoration of possession under the relevant rent control legislation.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a son to appear as a witness before the Rent Controller invalidate a landlord's plea of bona fide personal requirement for that son?
- Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction interfere with the findings of an appellate court regarding the bona fide requirement of rented premises?
- What is the remedy for a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy the premises after obtaining an ejectment order based on personal use?
- FAZAL REHMAN Versus KARIM GUL1988 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court addresses whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's second appeal as barred by time. The core legal question revolves around the computation of the 'time requisite' for obtaining certified copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, specifically whether the period between the date the copies are ready for delivery and the date they are actually collected can be excluded. The Supreme Court held that the time taken between the date on which a copy is ready for delivery and the date the applicant chooses to take delivery cannot be considered time requisite for obtaining the copy under Section 12, unless further delay is caused by the office giving wrong information or no information. The key principle laid down is that an appellant cannot exclude the period after the certified copies are ready for collection unless negligence or fault of the copying agency is established.
Questions settled- Whether the time between the preparation of certified copies and their actual collection can be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can delay in collecting certified copies be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 due to the litigant's negligence?
- What constitutes 'time requisite' for obtaining copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus MASKIN1988 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the respondent, Maskin, claiming a superior right of pre-emption due to contiguity against the appellant, Bashir Hussain Shah. The trial court decreed the suit in part with respect to certain Khasra numbers found to be contiguous, rejecting the appellant's contentions regarding partial pre-emption and the sale price. The District Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed his revision petition in limine, leading to the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-emptor can obtain a decree for specific Khasra numbers out of a larger purchase on the ground of contiguity, and whether the vendee can defeat such a claim on the basis of remaining a co-sharer in the khata. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that a pre-emptor can successfully obtain a decree for Khasra numbers contiguous to his land, and the vendee cannot defeat this claim merely by remaining a co-sharer in the khata.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emptor get a decree for one or more Khasra numbers out of a larger purchase on the ground of contiguity?
- Can a vendee defeat a pre-emptor's claim to a contiguous Khasra number on the ground that the vendee is to remain a co-sharer in the khata after the decree?
- KHURSHID AHMAD Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, RAHIMYAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB DAIRY AND POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Versus A.G. AFZAL1988 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ELAHI Versus WAPDA1988 SCMR 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave was directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal against his removal from service by WAPDA. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority, having initially issued a charge-sheet against an employee for disciplinary proceedings, was precluded from subsequently terminating his service without an inquiry under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1956. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the law provides a competent authority with two distinct modes for terminating an employee's service, initiating proceedings under one mode does not, absent a specific legal bar, prevent the authority from resorting to the other mode at a later stage. The Court further declined to remand the matter to the Service Tribunal, noting that the Tribunal had already evaluated the case and found no evidence of mala fides in the removal order, leaving no grounds to justify a remand.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a departmental charge-sheet preclude an authority from subsequently removing an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1956 without a formal inquiry?
- Where law provides two different modes for terminating an employee's service, does electing one mode bar the authority from resorting to the second mode at a later stage?
- GHULAM SADIQ Versus NAZ ALI1988 SCMR 1245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER (REVENUE); BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM DIN Versus ABDUR RASHID1988 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus MEHR ELAHI1988 SCMR 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD1988 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1988 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- BARKAT BIBI Versus HAKIM DIN1988 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case originated from a suit for possession of land, challenging a gift made by Arura to Mst. Barkat Bibi seven days before his death. The respondents, collaterals of Arura, contended the gift was invalid under customary law, lacked delivery of possession, and was made under undue influence when the donor was not of sound mind. The trial court and District Judge concurrently decreed the suit, finding the gift invalid. During a Regular Second Appeal to the High Court, one respondent died, leading to the appeal being consigned as abated in toto. Leave was granted by the Supreme Court to consider the abatement issue. However, the Supreme Court, while noting the abatement decision might be incorrect, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the gift was invalid due to undue influence, lack of possession, and the donor's inability to make such a gift under customary law as an Arain. Consequently, the property was held to devolve upon Arura's heirs under Muhammadan law, as per Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983).
Questions settled- Can a gift be valid under customary law if the donor is an Arain by caste and governed by custom?
- Is delivery of possession an essential ingredient for a valid gift?
- Can a gift made under undue influence be considered valid?
- How does property devolve if a gift is found invalid, particularly under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)?
- KAREEM BAKHSH Versus ABDUL REHMAN1988 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- KALBI-I-ABBAS Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1236 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus ARSHAD BIBI1988 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus GHULAM SAKINA1988 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT1988 SCMR 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB Versus SARDAR ALI1988 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS (LAHORE DIVISION) Versus SKY ROOM LIMITED1988 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- FEROZE BIBI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1988 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR FATIMA Versus FAZALUNNISA1988 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID SHAH Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA1988 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- RAZA MUHAMMAD SIAL Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF1988 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus NOOR DIN1988 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ILAM DIN1988 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1988 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- MEERAN BUX Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court which cancelled the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner is facing trial under sections 302 and 304 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court had set aside the pre-arrest bail on the ground that the pre-requisite showing arrest was due to ulterior motives, as established by precedent, was not satisfactorily proved. The core legal question concerns whether the allegations regarding ulterior motives in the bail application were duly considered on merits. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had indeed pleaded ulterior motives and police fabrication, and considering the concession by the State counsel, there was merit in granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that where an accused specifically pleads ulterior motives and false fabrication by the police in a pre-arrest bail application, the matter warrants consideration on its merits rather than summary dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled when the accused has pleaded ulterior motives and police fabrication in the bail application?
- Is a first informant a necessary party in a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus GHULAM SHABBIR1988 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LQBAL Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL DETERGENTS LTD. Versus PROVINCE OF SIND1988 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, OKARA1988 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- IHSANULLAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR1988 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus SHAHID LATIF1988 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Versus MEHBUB ELLAHI1988 SCMR 1204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- NAZEER HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1988 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-23Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR REHMAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GHULAM AKBAR BHUTTO1988 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal setting aside the reversion of the respondent from Grade-19 to Grade-18 under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act. The core legal questions examined were whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest, and whether the powers reserved under Section 12-A could be invoked in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that orders passed under Section 12-A are reviewable by the Service Tribunal only on limited grounds such as coram non judice, mala fide in fact, or mala fide in law. The Court found that the respondent's Grade-19 appointment was tainted by political influence and intervention from an extraneous non-statutory authority, and the Service Tribunal erred in condoning these irregularities. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Service Tribunal's order, and dismissed the respondent's departmental appeal.
Questions settled- Whether exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest?
- Whether powers reserved under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act could be invoked in cases of appointments made under political influence?
- On what specific grounds can an order passed under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act be reviewed by the Service Tribunal?
- MEHMOOD ALI SHAH Versus MUNAWAR1988 SCMR 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus GHULAM MAHBOOB1988 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of an ahata measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas in Tehsil Faisalabad, originally classified as evacuee property. The respondent purchased the property from Settlement authorities in 1964. However, the Provincial Government claimed ownership based on an earlier mutation from 1963, asserting that the property had been acquired through an exchange of State land with evacuee property and thus did not form part of the compensation pool. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him the owner. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Central Government had sanctioned the acquisition of this property by the Province prior to its inclusion in the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement authorities incompetent to transfer it. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the Provincial Government required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the validity of the transfer and the status of the property.
Questions settled- Whether property sanctioned for acquisition by the Provincial Government from the Central Government can be legally transferred by Settlement authorities as part of the compensation pool?
- Does the prior mutation of evacuee property in favor of the Provincial Government preclude its subsequent transfer to a private party by Settlement authorities?
- BARKAT ALI DOGAR Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1988 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner was initially ordered to deposit zar-e-punjam by a specific date. Before that deadline, the petitioner applied to furnish security instead of cash; the trial court rejected this but extended the time for the cash deposit, which the petitioner complied with. The respondents challenged the suit's maintainability in the appellate courts, arguing the failure to deposit within the original timeframe necessitated dismissal. The High Court remanded the matter, directing the trial court to re-examine whether the extension of time was validly granted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address the core legal question: whether a civil court possesses the authority under the Punjab Pre-emption Act to extend the time for depositing zar-e-punjam without providing notice to the defendant, particularly when the defendant has not yet been served. The Court noted this as a matter of first impression, suspended the High Court's remand order, and granted leave to consider the scope of judicial discretion regarding procedural compliance in pre-emption litigation.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have the power to extend the time for depositing zar-e-punjam under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Can a trial court validly extend the time for a pre-emptor to deposit zar-e-punjam without issuing notice to the defendant if the defendant has not yet been served?
- IMAM DIN Versus MAQBUL AHMAD SHEIKH1988 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADANWAR Versus ARSHAD JILLANI1988 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN ALIAS NAJJI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-24Read full judgment →
- MANGOO KHAN Versus ABDUL MALIK,1988 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
- SHER MAST KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD DYAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his Constitutional Petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller could lawfully strike off the tenant's defence and simultaneously pass an ejectment order without an express, lawful determination on the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that striking off the tenant's defence and ordering ejectment without a specific decision on jurisdiction and the preliminary issue of tenancy was done without lawful authority and jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, the appellate court, and the High Court, and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller cannot strike off a tenant's defence or order ejectment without first properly deciding the jurisdictional question of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence without a specific decision on the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether an ejectment order can be passed against a tenant without a lawful determination of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- BAKHI Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL1988 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD INAM Versus PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD1988 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus LAL DIN1988 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding a claim for compensation for improvements made to mortgaged evacuee land. The petitioners, successors to an original mortgagee, sought both the recovery of mortgage money and compensation for improvements after the land was allotted to respondents under settlement operations. The Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Settlement Commissioner had granted the mortgage money but denied the compensation claim, citing a lack of declaration from the Custodian under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, primarily noting an unexplained, gross delay in filing the application for compensation. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners failed to adhere to the mandatory deadline established by the Settlement Department's Press Note dated 6 December 1962, which required all claims for mortgage money and compensation for improvements on evacuee land to be submitted by 31 January 1963. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, affirming that claims not filed within the prescribed limitation period are time-barred.
Questions settled- Can a mortgagee of evacuee land claim compensation for improvements after the prescribed deadline set by the Settlement Department?
- Does an unexplained delay in filing an application for compensation for improvements on evacuee land justify the dismissal of a writ petition?
- Is a claim for compensation for improvements on evacuee land maintainable if the applicant failed to comply with the deadline stipulated in the Press Note of 6 December 1962?
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus SULTAN MAHMOOD1988 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus ALI ASGHAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal, brought by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, examined whether the respondent, a former employee of the Population Planning Programme, had ceased to be a civil servant following the promulgation of the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance 1981, thereby stripping the Service Tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain his appeal against dismissal. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the non-obstante and deeming clauses in sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, employees who were not recommended for regular absorption by the Federal Public Service Commission ceased to be civil servants, regardless of their prior status. Consequently, the Federal Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's appeal. The key principle laid down is that special statutory provisions governing reorganization and regularization under the 1981 Ordinance override previous civil servant status, and non-civil servant government employees are only entitled to the observance of principles of natural justice rather than strict statutory civil service disciplinary rules. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's judgment set aside.
Questions settled- Does the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance 1981 alter the status of employees such that those not recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission cease to be civil servants?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by employees of the Population Planning Programme who do not qualify as civil servants under the 1981 Ordinance?
- What procedural protections are available to a government employee who has ceased to be a civil servant during departmental dismissal proceedings?
- INAYAT KHAN Versus MURTAZA KHAN1988 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a pre-emption suit where the respondents sought to pre-empt a sale of land comprising multiple Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor can claim a superior right of pre-emption over an entire block of land based on contiguity when their land is adjacent to only one Khasra number, while other Khasra numbers in the sale are physically separated by intervening land owned by third parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the principle established in Said Karim Shah v. Taj Muhammad. While a sale of multiple Khasra numbers generally constitutes a single property for pre-emption purposes, the right of pre-emption based on contiguity is not absolute. The Court affirmed the principle that a pre-emptor cannot claim contiguity over a Khasra number that is physically separated from their land by intervening property owned by others, as the ring fence of contiguity is broken. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the appellate court’s decision, holding that the test of contiguity was not satisfied for the separated Khasra number.
Questions settled- Does the sale of a parcel of land comprised in multiple Khasra numbers constitute a single property for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Is a pre-emptor entitled to pre-empt an entire block of land if their land is contiguous to only one of the Khasra numbers within that block?
- Does the right of pre-emption based on contiguity apply to a Khasra number that is physically separated from the pre-emptor's land by intervening land owned by others?
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
- NAEEM ENGINEERING CORPORATION Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT TRUST, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition was filed by the Province of Punjab against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated 13-5-1987. The petitioner's main grievance was that the judgment had inadvertently declared illegal not only the transfer of land belonging to the respondent Christian Educational Endowment Trust, but also mutations concerning another parcel of land standing in the name of the Board of Foreign Missions, which was the subject-matter of separate litigation before a Civil Judge. The core question was whether the previous judgment had erroneously adjudicated upon property not forming part of the respondent-Trust's ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the grievance was based on an entire misconception and misreading of the judgment. The Court clarified that its earlier ruling was strictly confined to the 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167 sq. ft. owned by the Christian Educational Endowment Trust, which was transferred without affording a hearing in violation of natural justice, and left unaffected any other land parcels or pending civil suits.
Questions settled- Does a review petition lie on the ground that the judgment overlooked certain parcels of land?
- Whether an order transferring trust property without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
- Does a judgment declaring a memorandum void regarding a specific trust property affect separate parcels of land under different ownership?
- BEHRAM KHAN Versus MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER1988 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land acquisition compensation. Before addressing the merits, the Supreme Court condoned a minor delay in filing the direct appeals under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, following earlier precedent due to procedural ambiguity. The primary legal issue was whether the Central Government or the Military Estate Officer had locus standi to appeal to the High Court against a Senior Civil Judge's enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Reaffirming the principle laid down in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer (PLD 1987 SC 485), the Supreme Court held that since local authorities, companies, and the Central Government lack statutory standing to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, they possess no implied right of appeal against the Civil Court's determination. Furthermore, Section 22-A inserted by the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance 1969 did not confer an appeal right on the Central Government or Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the Central Government or a beneficiary entity have the locus standi to file an appeal against a Civil Court's judgment enhancing land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can a right of appeal be inferred on a priori grounds without an express statutory provision conferring such a right?
- Whether Section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 grants the Central Government or a non-company project the right to file cross-objections or subsequent appeals against land acquisition awards?
- CHHAJU KHAN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA1988 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition and set aside an order of remand passed by a Settlement Revisional Authority in a displaced persons land settlement matter. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the remand order where the appellants, who were in possession of the disputed land and had submitted prior transfer applications before the wrong settlement forum, were condemned unheard and their claims were not considered on merits prior to allotment of the land to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be penalized for submitting applications to the wrong forum due to a mutual misapprehension of the land's status, that they had a valid right of hearing and competition for the transfer, and that the remand order was legally justified. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the remand order was restored.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment order can be sustained when the occupants of the land submitted transfer applications to the wrong forum due to a bona fide misapprehension of the land status?
- Can a party be penalized for filing transfer applications on wrong forms or before the urban settlement authorities instead of land settlement authorities?
- Whether a remand order passed by a Settlement Commissioner on the ground of denial of a hearing can be set aside as a futile exercise without examining the merits of the applicant's claim?
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus ABDUL HAMID1988 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus QASIM ALI SHAH1988 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three separate petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that modified convictions and sentences in a murder case. The trial court had convicted five accused persons under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted one accused, Qasim Ali, citing his old age as a basis for doubt despite acknowledging his presence, reduced the death sentence of another to life imprisonment on the grounds of family honour, and acquitted the remaining accused of charges under sections 148 and 149. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in all three petitions filed by the complainant, the State, and the convicts. The Court determined that the entire evidence required reappraisal to address the validity of the High Court's findings regarding the acquittal of Qasim Ali, the reduction of the death sentence, and the application of vicarious liability provisions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of these modifications and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court acquit an accused on the basis of old age despite finding them present at the scene of the crime?
- Is the motivation of vindicating family honour a valid legal ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the acquittal of one accused in a case involving sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate the acquittal of others on those same charges?
- JAVED Versus STATE1988 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus HAMID KHAN1988 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute initially brought before a Conciliation Court regarding a monetary claim for land. The Conciliation Court referred the matter to a third party who issued a document described as an 'award'. The respondent subsequently filed a suit for specific performance of this award, which the appellant contested as barred under the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal questions were whether the Conciliation Court possessed jurisdiction over the dispute and whether the document in question constituted an 'award' or an 'agreement of sale'. The Supreme Court held that the Conciliation Court lacked jurisdiction because the underlying claim was not based on a written contract, rendering the proceedings a nullity. Furthermore, the Court determined that the document was an award, not an agreement of sale, and therefore the suit for its enforcement was barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The principle established is that Conciliation Courts only have jurisdiction over written contracts, and parties cannot re-characterize documents on appeal to circumvent statutory bars when their pleadings consistently treated the document as an award.
Questions settled- Does the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1961 confer jurisdiction on Conciliation Courts to adjudicate disputes arising from oral contracts?
- Can a party, on appeal, re-characterize a document as an agreement of sale when the suit was originally filed for the specific performance of an award?
- Is a suit for the enforcement of an award barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940 if the validity of the award is contested?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus KAMAL DIN1988 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which acquittal had been maintained by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved whether the respondents were rightly acquitted based on the plea of private defence of person and property. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly accepted the defence version that the accused acted in exercise of their right of private defence against a raiding party attempting to take forcible possession of a disputed Ihata, and that the respondents had not exceeded their right of private defence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an accused party establishes a genuine apprehension of danger to life and property from a raiding party, retaliatory firing to repel the attack without exceeding the bounds of self-defence justifies an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the accused are entitled to the right of private defence when repelling a raiding party attempting to take forcible possession of property?
- Can an acquittal upheld by the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the plea of self-defence is reasonably established?
- Does the mere fact that two persons were killed and one injured necessarily imply that the right of private defence was exceeded?
- MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus AHMAD BAKHS'MUKHTAR AHMAD NAZIR AHMAD1988 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mukhtar Ahmad against a judgment of the High Court dated 17-11-1985, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Nazir Ahmad from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to Section 304-I and reduced his sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the killing of his father. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence were sound and that the case was not a fit one for interference. The Supreme Court accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the apex court will not interfere with well-reasoned High Court judgments altering convictions and sentences based on proper appreciation of circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of sentence by the High Court when the reasons recorded are found to be sound?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent for the murder of two individuals, relying on eye-witness testimony and recovery evidence. The High Court, however, overturned the conviction, citing doubts regarding the reliability of the recovery evidence due to police delay in forensic submission and disbelieving the eye-witnesses as chance witnesses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court’s assessment of the eye-witnesses was sound, specifically regarding their presence at the crime scene in the absence of prior enmity. The Court further seeks to examine whether the rejection of this testimony and the reliance on the police's procedural negligence regarding forensic evidence aligned with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The matter is set for further review to resolve these evidentiary and procedural concerns.
Questions settled- Does the absence of previous enmity between parties enhance the credibility of eye-witnesses who are otherwise classified as chance witnesses?
- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be disregarded solely on the basis of their classification as chance witnesses when a plausible explanation for their presence is provided?
- To what extent does a delay by police in submitting crime empties and a weapon to a forensic expert invalidate the recovery evidence in a murder trial?
- ABDUL MAJEED KHALID Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the use of a plot of land, Khasra No. 8277 in Kot Pucca Qilla, Kasur, which has been utilized for the construction of a girls' primary school. The petitioners, a group of twenty residents, challenged the construction, asserting that the plot was unsuitable for a school and had historically been used by the community as a funeral/gathering place and for parking vehicles. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully challenge the public utility project despite the lack of exclusive individual possession and the fact that the project was undertaken with the approval of the majority of the local residents. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to establish exclusive possession or a unique individual right, and given that the school was constructed with the support of the majority of the village inhabitants, the petition lacked merit. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere in such public interest matters where the project serves the broader community.
Questions settled- Can residents challenge the construction of a public school on village land without proving exclusive individual possession?
- Does the approval of a majority of residents for a public utility project preclude a minority from challenging it in court?
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER1988 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging an administrative decision by a Superintending Engineer. The petitioner had filed a civil suit contesting the legality of an order permitting a respondent to share an irrigation outlet previously used exclusively by the petitioner. Alongside the suit, the petitioner sought interim relief to suspend the Superintending Engineer's order. The trial court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the existing water supply was sufficient for both parties, thereby concluding that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss or inconvenience. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to displace the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts regarding the sufficiency of water and the lack of irreparable harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Does the sufficiency of water supply preclude a finding of irreparable loss in a suit challenging an irrigation outlet sharing order?
- Can a petitioner obtain interim relief against an administrative order if they cannot demonstrate irreparable loss or inconvenience?
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal (PSLA) filed by Shaukat Ali against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his revision petitions seeking enhancement of sentence for one respondent and challenging the acquittal of five co-accused in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Aslam under Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting the other five respondents. The core legal questions were whether the conviction of Muhammad Aslam should be altered to Section 304-I and whether the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction might technically fall under Section 304-I, the ten-year sentence imposed was adequate, rendering an alteration of the conviction unnecessary. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court found no flaw in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, establishing the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted solely to alter a conviction section when the existing sentence remains appropriate in the circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to alter a conviction section if the sentence awarded is already adequate?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment where the High Court's appraisal of evidence is sound?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus ZULFIQAR ALI1988 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the conviction of the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, alongside altering another conviction, relying on previous provocation where the deceased had slapped the respondent six days prior to the incident. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the prior slap constituted a valid mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life in a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the reasons given for the mitigating circumstance were proper and cogent in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the adequacy and legality of mitigating circumstances relied upon for awarding a lesser penalty in capital punishment cases remain subject to strict judicial scrutiny by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether previous slaps given to an accused days prior to an incident constitute a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Did the High Court commit a miscarriage of justice by altering the death penalty based on provocation that was remote in time?
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus BAGGU1988 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which acquitted respondents 1 to 10 of charges under sections 302, 307, 149, 148, 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents, finding the occurrence to be a free fight, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the respondents had acted in the exercise of their right of self-defence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the right of self-defence and the acquittal of the respondents warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view that the incident involved self-defence was probable and not perverse, and therefore declined to interfere with the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's finding of self-defence, if based on cogent reasons and a plausible view of the evidence, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the right of self-defence when the High Court's view is probable and not perverse?
- Does the presence of injuries on both sides support a plea of self-defence in a criminal altercation?
- How are testimonies of close relatives who are also injured witnesses evaluated in criminal cases?
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Hafeez. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core issue of whether the petitioner could substantiate the grounds for leave to appeal. Upon review, the Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had prepared a misleading pro forma, which rendered the counsel unable to effectively argue the case before the bench. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition due to a lack of assistance from the petitioner's counsel. The judgment reinforces the principle that it is the duty of the legal counsel to provide adequate and accurate assistance to the Court, and failure to do so, particularly through the submission of misleading documentation, justifies the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the petitioner's counsel fails to provide adequate assistance to the Court?
- What is the consequence of submitting a misleading pro forma in a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus RASHID AHMAD1988 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Peshawar High Court whereby the respondent, charged under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, was granted post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on an oath taken on the Holy Quran by the accused party proclaiming innocence. The core legal question was the propriety of granting bail under section 497(2) without the prerequisite finding that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail merely on the basis of an oath without recording the necessary finding for further inquiry. However, considering the lapse of time since the occurrence in 1985 and the likelihood of the trial having progressed or concluding soon, the Court declined to cancel the bail and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the release on grounds other than those given by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a definite finding by the court that no reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused committed the non-bailable offence.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence?
- Does an oath taken on the Holy Quran proclaiming innocence constitute a valid legal ground for granting bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Will the Supreme Court set aside an improper bail order where considerable time has passed and the trial is likely concluded or about to commence?
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus ANWAR SHAH1988 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent acquittal of two respondents, Syed Anwar Shah and Syed Mubarak Shah, who were tried for the murder of Muhammad Umar. The core legal question concerned the credibility of the ocular testimony and the admissibility and evidentiary value of a counter-report lodged by the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the untrustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses were well-founded, and further held that the counter-report was not legally admissible in evidence to establish the presence of the deceased at the scene without formal proof, which the prosecution failed to secure during the trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on the credibility of witnesses by lower courts will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, and a counter-report cannot be used as substantive evidence of facts stated therein unless duly proved in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of acquittal by the lower courts based on the credibility of witnesses can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Can a counter-report lodged at the police station be used as substantive evidence without being formally proved during the trial?
- Whether additional evidence can be allowed at the Supreme Court stage to prove a document when the party failed to avail the opportunity at earlier stages?
- WASAL KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arose from the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether sufficient and reliable corroboration was available for the ocular testimony of interested witnesses in the background of deep-rooted enmity and cross-cases, and whether the medical evidence and recoveries contradicted their testimony. The Supreme Court held that in view of the serious enmity, past murders, and improper handling of evidence by the investigating officer—specifically the failure to send all recovered crime empties to the firearms expert—the interested testimony of the eyewitnesses did not receive the necessary independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants, allowed the appeal, set aside their convictions and sentences, and ordered their immediate release, laying down that an investigating officer must conduct investigations with an open mind and submit all crucial material evidence for forensic evaluation in cases involving interested witnesses and deep enmity.
Questions settled- Whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration in cases involving deep-rooted enmity and cross-cases?
- Does the failure of an investigating officer to send recovered crime empties to a firearms expert weaken the prosecution case?
- Can mere abscondence and medical evidence of a generalized nature serve as sufficient corroboration for the conviction of appellants under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- STATE Versus KHANZADA KHAN1988 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court in criminal revision proceedings concerning a land dispute and apprehension of a breach of the peace. The core legal question was whether the High Court could constitute an independent body or commission of notables outside the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to adjudicate and decide the question of territorial jurisdiction regarding the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and the High Court acted beyond the ambit of the law by setting up a parallel forum and interfering with a well-reasoned finding of the Magistrate based on oral and documentary evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Magistrate was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court could constitute an independent body for adjudication of territorial jurisdiction outside the provisions of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the scope of revisional powers exercisable by the High Court under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a High Court set up a forum other than the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to decide a dispute?
- ABDUL GHANI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder charges and dismissed revisions for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal. The core legal question involved the evaluation of the plea of self-defence in a dispute arising from the construction of a boundary wall over jointly owned land by co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions arrived at by the High Court regarding the appreciation of evidence were reasonable, noting that no co-sharer has the right to appropriate exclusive possession of specific parts of joint property without consent, and that the respondents were justified in defending their possession given the circumstances and injuries sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down that co-sharers have a right to defend their possession against unilateral exclusive appropriations of joint property.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer has the right to appropriate for exclusive possession a specific part of joint property without the consent of other co-sharers?
- Does a co-sharer have the right of private defence of property when an opposing party attempts to construct a boundary wall on joint land without consent?
- When can the appellate court uphold an acquittal based on the plea of self-defence supported by injuries sustained by the accused during the transaction?
- JEHAN DAD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN1988 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ AHMAD Versus SHAKILA BEGUM1988 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1988 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of the trial court and the Additional District Judge regarding the validity of an ex parte decree. The original suit involved a claim of ownership over agricultural land, where the trial court issued an ex parte decree after the defendants avoided service and failed to appear following substituted service via proclamation. The petitioner subsequently filed a separate civil suit challenging the ex parte decree, alleging it was obtained through fraud and collusion between the plaintiff and the process-serving agency. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the petitioner failed to prove the allegations of fraud. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence and reached a factual conclusion that fraud was not established, and as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in those findings, there were no grounds to interfere. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding allegations of fraud in a second appeal?
- Is an ex parte decree valid if it was obtained after substituted service was properly executed via proclamation?
- MOUNDER Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question pertained to the true interpretation and scope of the fourth proviso to section 497(1), specifically whether an under-trial prisoner can be classified as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to be denied statutory bail solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the allegations forming the subject-matter of the pending trial, and what material a court must rely upon to make such a determination. The Supreme Court observed that the term 'criminal' is undefined in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that a conflict of judicial opinion exists regarding whether such matters should be decided on a tentative assessment of guilt. Finding these contentions to be of first impression requiring authoritative resolution, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an under-trial prisoner be considered a criminal before the determination of his guilt at trial for the purpose of denying statutory bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Upon what material is a court supposed to determine whether an accused person is a desperate, dangerous, or hardened criminal under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the heinous nature of the allegations that form the subject-matter of an ongoing trial suffice to categorize an accused as a dangerous or desperate criminal?
- HAJI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDY1988 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, cattle traders, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing their constitutional petition. The petitioners had historically been awarded contracts for a 'Mal-Piri' (cattle market) by the local authority through negotiation. When the respondent authority decided to put the contract to public auction, the petitioners challenged this, claiming a vested right to the contract due to their long-standing tenure and investment in the premises. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners had a vested right to the contract via negotiation and whether they qualified as 'aggrieved parties' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners possessed no vested right to the contract, as their previous possession was contingent upon the contract itself, and they were not owners of the land. Consequently, they lacked the standing to challenge the auction process. The Court affirmed that a contractor who has historically benefited from negotiated contracts cannot claim a vested right to continue such arrangements, nor does such a history render them an 'aggrieved party' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a public auction.
Questions settled- Does a contractor who has historically been awarded contracts through negotiation acquire a vested right to continue such contracts?
- Can a party who has no ownership interest in the premises of a business claim to be an 'aggrieved party' to challenge the auction of a contract related to that business?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a party lacking a vested legal right to the subject matter of the dispute?
- SALEEMUDDIN Versus TEOOMAL1988 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Sind High Court passed in a Letters Patent Appeal, concerning the identity and ownership of a shop in Shahdadpur. The core legal question involved the justification for recalling an order of remand and resolving the controversy regarding the identity of the disputed property vis-a-vis evacuee property transfer laws and prior judicial admissions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had made clear judicial admissions in prior civil and rent proceedings acknowledging the respondent's ownership and landlord status in respect of the exact shop in dispute. The Court established the principle that a party cannot be permitted to resile from clear admissions regarding property identity and make up a new case to sustain an unwarranted remand order.
Questions settled- Whether an order of remand is justified when the identity of the disputed property has been clearly established through prior admissions?
- Can a party be permitted to set up a new case regarding property identity in contradiction to clear admissions made in earlier civil and rent proceedings?
- Whether the High Court's Division Bench was justified in setting aside an order of remand passed by a learned Single Judge?
- AHMED YOUSUF Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1988 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition by the High Court of Sind, which had rejected his claim for pension following his retirement from service under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to count his previous service from 1st June, 1960 towards pension under rule 8 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's initial appointment as Chairman of the Municipal Committee was on a contractual basis, that his previous service under the Central Government had no nexus, and that the post of Chairman was not covered under rule 8 until subsequently included in the Local Councils Service schedule by notification dated 19th June, 1965. Consequently, his qualifying service for pension commenced from 19th June, 1965, falling short of the ten years required for pension, thereby entitling him only to gratuity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee serving on a contractual basis as Chairman of a Municipal Committee is entitled to count prior contractual and central government service towards pension under rule 8 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963?
- From which date does service qualify for pension when a post is subsequently included in the West Pakistan Local Councils Service schedule?
- Does service rendered under the Central Government have a nexus for pension purposes with subsequent service under the Provincial Government's local councils?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus CHIE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND1988 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which set aside a Single Judge's order directing the transfer of a disputed shop to the appellants. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Letters Patent Bench correctly construed documentary evidence and followed previous High Court decisions. The dispute involves competing claims for the transfer of a shop under settlement laws, where lower authorities and a remand report concurrent found that the appellants' predecessor-in-interest came into possession after the crucial date of 20th December 1958, thus lacking entitlement. The Supreme Court held that the finding on possession is a question of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence and should not be disturbed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the appellants failed to establish their entitlement to the transfer of the disputed property.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact regarding possession on or before the crucial date by a settlement authority can be disturbed in appeal?
- Does a party acquire a vested right to the transfer of a property if their possession commenced after the crucial date?
- Whether the High Court's Letters Patent Bench can direct a remand inquiry to determine the actual possession of the disputed property at the relevant time?
- GHULAM QADIR Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his regular second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question involved was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a sale or an exchange. Three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact holding that the transaction was a sale, and the High Court dismissed the appeal as the counsel failed to point out any misconstrued or omitted material evidence. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to reopen a matter finally decided by concurrent findings of fact when no material evidence has been misconstrued or omitted. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on second appeal unless material evidence has been ignored or misread.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange in a pre-emption suit?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts?
- Can a regular second appeal be maintained without pointing out misconstrued or omitted material evidence?