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.
- YASIN Versus STATE1977 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the appellant was rightly held vicariously liable under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder committed by his brother. The appellant and his co-accused brother were originally convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased following a sudden altercation arising from a family dispute. The Supreme Court observed that although the appellant held the deceased during the scuffle while his brother inflicted the fatal knife blow, there was no evidence of any pre-planned conspiracy or prior knowledge on the part of the appellant that his brother was armed with a deadly weapon. The court held that in the absence of a shared common intention to cause death, the appellant's liability could not be extended to murder merely due to his participation in the grappling. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, altered it to an offense under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for a murder committed by a co-accused without proof of prior knowledge that the co-accused was armed with a deadly weapon?
- Whether the absence of a pre-conceived plan precludes the application of common intention in a sudden altercation resulting in a fatal injury?
- Under what circumstances can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to one under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- SHAHZAR KHAN Versus SIND LABOUR COURT NO. 4, KARACHI1977 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's constitution petition against the termination of his services as Head Chowkidar and Assistant Manager, Security, by respondent No. 3. The core legal questions involve whether the appellant qualifies as a 'workman' under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether he is entitled to relief under section 25-A thereof. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misconceived the law by applying the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, instead of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that upon the admitted duties and salary of Rs. 350 per month, the appellant is indeed a 'workman'. However, because the appellant categorically admitted the allegations against him during the domestic inquiry and the Junior Labour Court found the inquiry fair and impartial, a remand is not warranted in the interest of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the termination of services stands legally.
Questions settled- Whether a Head Chowkidar supervising other chowkidars qualifies as a 'workman' under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, require the performance of manual or clerical work?
- Whether the High Court erred in applying the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, instead of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- MUMTAZ Versus SARFARAZ1977 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents facing charges under sections 302, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the initial pre-trial bail granted irregularly through administrative directions of the District Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court and the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of bail granted in a heinous murder case supported by eyewitness accounts and whether the High Court misconstrued section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it by directing the trial court to conduct an expeditious trial and clarifying that if the trial judge, after examining the eyewitnesses, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence, the judge remains free to cancel the bail. The key principle laid down is that trial courts retain the authority to reconsider and cancel bail upon evaluating ocular evidence during trial if reasonable grounds emerge connecting the accused to a non-bailable offence.
Questions settled- Can a trial court cancel bail after examining eyewitnesses if reasonable grounds appear for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Whether pre-trial bail granted through executive interference by a District Magistrate is sustainable under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does evaluation of eyewitness discrepancies and delay justify the grant of bail in a murder case punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ASIA FATIMA Versus ABDUL HAMEED FARQUI1976 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CHROME MINES LTD. Versus PHIBR ASIA LTD.1976 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-22Read full judgment →
- SHER GUL Versus STATE1976 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
- IMAM A1I SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN1976 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
- MACDONALD LAYTN & COSTAIN LTD. Versus AVARI HOTELS LTD.1976 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a construction company, entered into a contract with the respondent for the construction of a hotel, which included a provision for a mobilisation fund secured by a bank guarantee. Following a dispute where the petitioner ceased construction work, the respondent sought to encash the bank guarantee. The petitioner filed an application before the High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking an injunction to restrain the respondent from encashing the guarantee. The High Court dismissed the application. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was noted that an appeal against the High Court's order was already pending before the High Court itself. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that the matter should first be adjudicated by the High Court in the pending appeal. The petition was dismissed on the principle that the Supreme Court will generally not entertain a matter while an appeal regarding the same subject matter is already sub judice before the High Court.
Questions settled- Should the Supreme Court entertain a petition when an appeal regarding the same matter is already pending before the High Court?
- Can a party seek an injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- KALIMULLAH Versus AMIN HAZIN1976 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner for default in rent and unauthorized sub-letting. The property in question originally belonged to evacuees who had sold it prior to migration, leading to subsequent lease and sub-lease transactions, ultimately resulting in the petitioner becoming a sub-tenant under the respondent. When the respondent sought ejectment, the petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the property was evacuee property. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ruled against the petitioner, and the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan dismissed the second appeal, holding that the petitioner was estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from challenging the landlord's title. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a tenant who has accepted a landlord and entered into possession cannot challenge that landlord's title. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who has accepted a landlord and entered into possession of premises is estopped from challenging the title of that landlord?
- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to hear an ejectment application when a tenant raises a dispute regarding the evacuee status of the property despite having accepted the tenancy?
- REHAN Versus STATE1976 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition aggrieved by an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan which maintained his conviction and sentence under section 13(e) of the Arms Act. The core legal question involved the credibility of recovery witnesses who were police officers and whether minor discrepancies in their statements regarding the exact location of the recovered revolver warranted disbelieving them. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the mere fact that both recovery witnesses are police officers is no reasonable ground for disbelieving them, particularly when they were not cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can police officers be considered reliable recovery witnesses when their testimony is left un-cross-examined?
- Does a minor discrepancy in the description of where a weapon was recovered from vitiate the testimony of recovery witnesses?
- SYED MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1976 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-15Read full judgment →
- ZAHIRA Versus ABDUL HAKEEM PATEL1976 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of 27 acres of evacuee property in Quetta, involving competing claims between the heirs of an allottee of a brick-kiln and an allottee of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the entire 27-acre tract, which included a brick-kiln, should be classified as an 'industrial concern' or if only the portion physically occupied by the kiln qualified as such, with the remainder being 'land' subject to agricultural settlement. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which affirmed the bifurcation of the property. The Court held that the mere extraction of earth for brick manufacturing from adjacent land does not convert that land into an 'industrial concern'. The principle laid down is that for property to be classified as an industrial concern, it must be directly utilized for the industrial purpose; land merely providing raw materials like earth does not lose its character as 'land' under the Land Settlement Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding the High Court's apportionment of the property to be just and proper.
Questions settled- Does the extraction of earth for brick manufacturing convert the surrounding land into an industrial concern?
- Can land used for a brick-kiln be classified as an industrial concern under the Land Settlement Act?
- Is a notification issued after a temporary allotment applicable to the final transfer of evacuee property?
- RAHTMAT BAKHSH Versus MUHAMMAD AND IQBAL1976 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of two respondents by the Lahore High Court, who had previously been convicted for the murder of an eighteen-year-old youth under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal, based on discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and doubts regarding the prosecution’s motive, was perverse or legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the High Court’s reasoning was sound. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant contradictions between the eye-witnesses' testimony regarding the firing distance and the medical evidence showing scorching, which indicated a much closer range. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the failure to produce independent witnesses in a populated area, combined with improvements in the prosecution's story regarding the motive, justified the High Court's skepticism. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the accused cannot be required to prove their innocence simply because the prosecution claims it is improbable they would falsely implicate the wrong persons.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the distance of firing stated by eye-witnesses and the distance indicated by medical evidence regarding scorching justify an acquittal?
- Can the failure of the prosecution to produce independent witnesses in a populated area be a valid ground for doubting the veracity of related eye-witnesses?
- Does the improbability of falsely implicating an accused shift the burden of proof to the defense to establish their innocence?
- Is the appellate court's appreciation of evidence regarding the credibility of witnesses a sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to interfere in its special jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SHER, Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,RAWALPINDI1976 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
- QUTUBUDDIN Versus HIDAYAT ULLAH KHAN MKAL1976 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-02Read full judgment →
- SHERZADA KHAN Versus COMMISSIONER (F. C. R.), PESHAWAR1976 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-07Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN Versus MRS. S. HENRY LAI1976 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-14Read full judgment →
- SUBHANUDDIN Versus STATE1976 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
- YUSAF ALI KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1976 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT CMMISSINER1976 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1976 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZE Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF1976 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking enhancement of sentence or alteration of conviction in a criminal case where the respondent was originally convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, which the High Court subsequently altered to section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a single stab blow delivered to the thigh during a sudden altercation, which unintentionally severs a femoral artery and causes death, constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or alternatively grievous hurt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that an ordinary person cannot be presumed to know the precise location of internal arteries in limbs, and therefore a single blow to a non-vital part of the body without premeditation warrants conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon rather than murder. The key principle laid down is that where an assailant inflicts a single blow to a non-vital limb during a sudden fight without premeditation, and death results solely from the accidental severing of an artery, the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death cannot be attributed to the assailant.
Questions settled- Whether a single stab blow to the thigh resulting in the severance of an femoral artery constitutes murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an ordinary person be presumed to have the knowledge of the precise location of arteries and veins in the human body?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a legal sentence of imprisonment passed by a competent High Court?
- ABDUL GHANI Versus NAZIR AHMAD1976 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
- MURAD BIBI Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REBABILITATION COMMISSIONER,PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1976 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-01Read full judgment →
- NOOR JEHAN Versus BSTAN1976 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD Versus FAZAL-UR-RAHMAN1976 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus ABDUL LATIF1976 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to grant an interlocutory injunction to the petitioner. The petitioner, a transferee of a residential tenement, sought a declaration of easement rights over the roof of a shop transferred to the respondent by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner claimed rights of easement by necessity and prescription to use the roof and pass sullage water. The trial court refused the injunction, citing the finality of the Settlement Authorities' transfer of the shop 'along with its roof' to the respondent and the availability of an alternative passage. Although the District Judge initially reversed this, the High Court restored the trial court's order in revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the matter of granting interim relief lies within the discretion of the courts below, and interference is unwarranted where the trial court's order is based on sound reasoning and the absence of irreparable injury.
Questions settled- Is the grant of an interlocutory injunction a matter of discretion for the trial court?
- Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction restore a trial court's order refusing an injunction if that order is based on sound reasoning?
- Does the absence of a finding of irreparable injury justify the refusal of an interlocutory injunction?
- ABDUL QAYYUM QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT F PUNJAB1976 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the dismissal of a civil petition for special leave to appeal, wherein the petitioner sought a re-interpretation of the tenure of his appointment as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's four-year tenure commenced from the date he took over as officiating Chairman or from the date of a subsequent notification specifying his terms and conditions of deputation. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner's initial appointment was a fresh regular appointment to a substantive vacancy under section 14 of the relevant Ordinance, and the subsequent notification was merely supplementary. The Court laid down the principle that the substance of an appointment and the enjoyment of the full statutory term prevail over technical objections regarding the use of the term 'officiating' or minor procedural irregularities in the notification.
Questions settled- Whether the tenure of a statutory appointment commences from the date of taking over office or from the subsequent notification of terms and conditions?
- Does the use of the word 'officiating' in an initial notification alter the substantive nature of a fresh regular appointment?
- Can technical pleas regarding procedural irregularities in an appointment notification invalidate the enjoyment of a full statutory term?
- SHAMSLUD-DIN Versus KHUDA BAKHSH1976 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZE Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,SARGDHA DIVISION1976 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
- WAZIR GUL Versus STATE1976 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
- SHERA Versus KHAN1976 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's second appeal against the District Judge's judgment setting aside the trial court's decree and dismissing the petitioner's suit for eviction and possession of agricultural land. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of oral evidence in competing oral sales of agricultural land, specifically regarding discrepancies in witness testimony, the relevance of currency notes ceasing to be legal tender, and the failure of the plaintiff to explain the absence of mutation or documentary proof of substantial cash payment. The Supreme Court held that the District Court rightly interfered with the trial court's appreciation of evidence due to material discrepancies in the plaintiff's oral evidence, including the mention of high-denomination currency notes that were no longer legal tender at the time of the alleged transaction. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court is justified in reversing a trial court's finding of fact where the trial court has ignored material contradictions in oral evidence, the absence of mutation by a stranger purchaser, and the lack of corroborative documentary evidence for substantial cash transactions.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with the trial court's appreciation of evidence when the trial court has ignored material discrepancies in witness testimonies?
- Does the failure of a plaintiff purchaser to obtain mutation or provide documentary evidence for a substantial cash transaction undermine an oral claim to agricultural land?
- Whether a second appeal raising purely factual disputes regarding the appreciation of evidence is fit to be dismissed in limine?
- MANZOR HUSSAIN GHAZI Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH1976 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus RASLAN BIBI1976 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal against the District Judge's order directing the petitioner's eviction from a leased shop. The respondents, legal heirs of the original lessor, sought eviction on the ground of personal requirement to run a goldsmith business. The Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction application, but the District Judge reversed this, finding the requirement to be in good faith and the existing premises unsuitable. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the non-examination of evidence, the suitability of alternative spaces (a thara and a chaubara), and allegations of mala fides due to a co-owner's actions concerning another property. The Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the appeal, that a first-floor shop is not as suitable for a goldsmith business as a ground-floor shop, and that the conduct of a co-owner cannot impute mala fides to the landlords. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal can be dismissed in limine without summoning and examining the record?
- Does the conduct of a co-owner in reletting another property affect the bona fides of a landlord seeking eviction for personal requirement?
- Is a first-floor shop considered suitable alternative premises for a ground-floor goldsmith business?
- MRS. I. KHAN Versus CONTROLLER OF RENTS1976 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an eviction decree passed by a District Judge in a rent dispute. The core legal question was whether an attorney, acting under a power of attorney that authorized entering into agreements regarding pending litigation, possessed the authority to settle an appeal by offering to abide by a special oath taken by the opposing party. The Supreme Court held that the power of attorney, while requiring strict construction, expressly empowered the attorney to enter into agreements on behalf of the petitioner regarding the litigation. Consequently, the Court determined that the authority to settle the litigation included the power to compromise the appeal through a special oath agreement. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition, ruling that the attorney had not exceeded his authority. The key principle laid down is that a general power of attorney to enter into agreements regarding pending litigation encompasses the authority to settle such litigation through a special oath, provided the construction of the power is reasonable.
Questions settled- Does a power of attorney authorizing an agent to enter into agreements regarding pending litigation include the power to settle the litigation via a special oath?
- Should a power of attorney be construed strictly?
- Can an eviction decree based on a special oath agreement be challenged on the basis of the attorney's lack of authority?
- RAJASAB KHAN Versus STATE1976 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE1976 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute concerning field No. 218 in Jhelum, which was notified as waqf property by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, followed by an eviction order under section 6-A. The petitioner challenged the notification and eviction through a petition under section 7 of the Ordinance before the District Court, which was initially dismissed as time-barred, and also filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court remanded the section 7 petition for a fresh trial but dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition alongside proceedings under section 7, and whether the bar on temporary injunctions under section 9 of the Ordinance justified bypassing statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to defeat express provisions of statutory law or to circumvent statutory bars against interim relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of the property must be decided in the remanded statutory proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition can be maintained alongside a pending petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961?
- Does the statutory bar on temporary injunctions under section 9 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961 justify invoking writ jurisdiction?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding whether a property is waqf be decided in writ proceedings?
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus IVTH SIND LABOR COURT1976 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1976 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of property No. 81-D, Model Town, Lahore. The petitioner, a non-claimant occupant of two garages on the property, had applied for its transfer on a CH form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially transferred the property to the petitioner and another respondent in equal shares, but the property was subsequently auctioned to a third party. The Settlement authorities later treated the property as a building site rather than a house, directing its transfer to the auction purchaser. On a writ petition, the Lahore High Court held that the property should have been treated as a house and directed the Settlement authorities to consider the petitioner's form afresh for the portion in her possession along with three times the plinth area. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioner had only applied for the transfer of one-quarter of the property in her CH form, she could not claim any area beyond what she had actually applied for, and substantial justice had been done.
Questions settled- Can an applicant for evacuee property claim transfer of an area larger than what was actually applied for in their CH form?
- Whether a property containing servant quarters and garages used as a residence should be treated as a house or a vacant building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the cancellation of an auction by settlement authorities require notice to the affected transferees who held prior P.T.O.s?
- MAQBOL BIBI Versus IBRAHIM1976 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus ZUBAIDA BEGUM1976 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against eviction orders passed by a Rent Controller and subsequently upheld by the 1st Appellate Court and the High Court. The petitioner had faced ex parte eviction proceedings due to repeated defaults in appearance. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance to justify setting aside the ex parte proceedings and whether the appeal against the final eviction order, which was filed with an eighteen-month delay, was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for his default or to provide material to rebut the grounds for eviction. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's use of dilatory tactics to obstruct the eviction process for five years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural defaults without sufficient cause and unexplained, significant delays in filing appeals are fatal to a petitioner's case, particularly when dilatory tactics are evident.
Questions settled- Can an appeal against an eviction order be entertained when it is filed with an unexplained delay of eighteen months?
- Does a petitioner's failure to show sufficient cause for repeated non-appearance justify the refusal to set aside ex parte eviction proceedings?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YUNIS1976 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-10-22Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN Versus STATE1976 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-19Read full judgment →
- HALIMAN Versus MUHAMMAD DIN1976 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged an order of the High Court upholding the dismissal of a suit due to abatement following the death of one of the defendants. The core legal question was whether the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased defendant results in the total abatement of the suit where another heir of the deceased is already a party to the proceedings in a different capacity. The Supreme Court held that since the heirs of a deceased Muslim succeed as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants, and given that another brother of the deceased defendant who was already on record substantially represented the estate, the suit did not abate either in whole or in part. The Court laid down the principle that where legal representatives of a deceased defendant are already on the record of a suit in another capacity, no application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is necessary, and the suit will not abate. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the case remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead the legal representatives of one deceased defendant result in the total abatement of a suit?
- Do the heirs of a deceased Muslim succeed as tenants-in-common or as joint tenants?
- Does a suit abate when a legal representative of the deceased defendant is already a party to the proceedings in another capacity?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus ABDUL KARIM1976 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-07Read full judgment →
- RAHATALLAH Versus STATE1976 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus CHAIRMAN, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, N.-W. F. P1976 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from the 1970 General Elections in Pakistan, where the appellant's election to the Provincial Assembly was declared void by an Election Tribunal. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court under section 64(3) of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, and sought a stay of the Tribunal's order, which the High Court refused on the grounds that the Ordinance did not expressly confer jurisdiction to grant a stay. Upon special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court possesses the ancillary or incidental power to grant interim relief by suspending the operation of an impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the power to suspend the operation of an order during the pendency of an appeal is reasonably incidental and ancillary to the main appellate jurisdiction, and when read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court indeed possesses the jurisdiction to stay the operation of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend the operation of an Election Tribunal's order during the pendency of an appeal under section 64(3) of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Ordinance, 1970?
- Is the power to grant interim relief by suspending the operation of an order appealed against considered incidental or ancillary to the main appellate jurisdiction when the statute is silent?
- Can provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be invoked in election appeals to grant a stay of the impugned order?
- SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY Versus AKHTAR SULTANA1976 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the Settlement Authority against Akhtar Sultana. The core legal question concerns the disposal of an appeal where neither the appellant nor its counsel or Advocate-on-Record is present at the hearing, and an adjournment is sought merely through an improper telephonic message. The court held that requesting an adjournment by a telephonic message demonstrates discourtesy to the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution with no order as to costs due to the respondent's absence. The key principle laid down is that appeals may be summarily dismissed for non-prosecution when parties fail to make a proper appearance and attempt to secure adjournments through informal and discourteous means.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant and counsel fail to appear?
- Is seeking an adjournment through a telephonic message acceptable practice before the Supreme Court?
- ZUBAIDA BEGUM Versus ABDUL HAMID1976 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute involving the transfer of evacuee property under settlement laws, specifically regarding the disposal of various forms filed by occupants of a composite property in Gujranwala. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in its Letters Patent Appeal, correctly excluded certain claimants from remand proceedings for the disposal of their settlement forms, despite their claims never having been adjudicated on merits. The Supreme Court held that the previous settlement orders were limited in scope and did not dispose of the claim regarding the stable occupied by appellant Jamal Din. Consequently, the High Court erred in excluding him from the remand proceedings. Conversely, the Court upheld the exclusion of the successors of Mohammad Yousaf, as their claim had attained finality due to laches and delay in their earlier writ petition. The Court affirmed that where a claim has not been adjudicated upon by settlement authorities, a party cannot be barred from seeking relief, provided the claim is not otherwise barred by laches or finality of previous proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of laches preclude a party from participating in subsequent remand proceedings regarding the same property?
- Can a settlement authority's order be interpreted to dispose of a claim that was never explicitly mentioned or adjudicated in the proceedings?
- Is a party entitled to be heard in remand proceedings if their original claim for the transfer of property remains undisposed of by the settlement authorities?
- HUSSAIN BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD DIN1976 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the disputed transfer of an evacuee house site in Kamoke, District Gujranwala. The core legal questions addressed were whether an auction purchaser acquires a vested right before confirmation, whether the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of a plot as a condition for transfer is legally valid, and whether failure to exhaust revisional remedies precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unconfirmed auction does not create a vested right in the highest bidder. The Court affirmed that the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of the plot, as stipulated in Settlement Scheme No. VI, was in excess of the statutory provisions and therefore invalid, consistent with the precedent in Mst. Mehmooda Tehseen v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah. Furthermore, the Court established that the failure to pursue a revisional remedy does not necessarily bar the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court’s order remanding the case to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh determination of the parties' rights was upheld as just and proper.
Questions settled- Does an unconfirmed auction sale create a vested right in favor of the highest bidder?
- Is the requirement of constructing on one-fourth of a plot, as contained in Settlement Scheme No. VI, legally valid?
- Does the failure to exhaust a revisional remedy operate as an absolute bar to the invocation of writ jurisdiction?
- QAMAR ALI SHAH Versus WARYAM1976 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which had upheld the District Judge's order granting an interlocutory injunction in a representative suit for perpetual injunction. The respondents, claiming to be occupancy tenants in possession of land containing a khanqah and graveyard, sought to restrain the petitioner from constructing a boundary wall. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction and evaluating the balance of convenience or inconvenience. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the interlocutory injunction was rightly issued as the balance of inconvenience lay in restraining the construction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, potential demolition, and wasted expense, whereas refusing the injunction would cause greater comparative mischief. The key principle laid down is that in determining whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the true criterion is the balance of comparative inconvenience or mischief that would result from refusing or granting the relief pending the suit.
Questions settled- What is the true criterion for granting an interlocutory injunction regarding the balance of convenience or inconvenience?
- Whether an interlocutory injunction can be issued to prevent the construction of a boundary wall during the pendency of a representative suit?
- Does the refusal of an interlocutory injunction resulting in potential multiplicity of proceedings justify the issuance of the injunction?
- HANIFAN BIBI Versus KALU1976 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an ex parte decree passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Muhammad Sharif, in a suit concerning land ownership. The petitioners argued that the special attorney appointed by Muhammad Sharif, Mst. Hajran Bibi, was only authorized to represent him in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, and not in the transferee Court at Kasur where the suit was ultimately decreed. The core legal question was whether the scope of the special attorney's power of attorney was limited to a specific court or extended to the defense of the suit regardless of venue. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the special attorney was for the purpose of defending the suit generally and was not confined to any particular court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the defendant was duly represented and that substituted service was properly effected. The petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the ex parte decree.
Questions settled- Does the appointment of a special attorney to defend a suit expire if the suit is transferred to a different court?
- Is a special attorney's authority limited to the specific court mentioned in the power of attorney if the document authorizes the defense of the suit generally?
- Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the defendant's attorney fails to appear after substituted service has been effected?
- NASIR AHMAD Versus KHUDA BAKHSH1976 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-14Read full judgment →
- WALAYAT AGENCIES. LYALIPUR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI1976 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application by the Advocate-on-Record seeking withdrawal from the case due to the appellant's lack of cooperation in prosecuting the appeal. Both counsel retained by the appellant declined to appear at Rawalpindi, presumably due to unpaid fees, and the appellant failed to respond to a registered hearing notice sent by the Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question concerns the disposal of an appeal where the appellant fails to cooperate or ensure representation. The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for non-prosecution under such circumstances, with no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that an appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant displays total lack of cooperation, fails to instruct counsel, and neglects to make arrangements for representation at the hearing.
Questions settled- What is the consequence when an appellant fails to cooperate with counsel and does not make arrangements for representation at the hearing of an appeal?
- Can an Advocate-on-Record withdraw from a case when the appellant fails to communicate or cooperate in the prosecution of the appeal?
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus NISAR & CO.1976 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the allotment of land. The core dispute involved competing claims over land: one party (respondent No. 1) had been granted permission by the Central Government to purchase the land for industrial purposes in 1958 and had taken possession in 1962, while the other party (petitioners) had purchased the land from subsequent allottees (respondents Nos. 4 and 5) in 1965. The Settlement Commissioner had set aside the allotment to respondents Nos. 4 and 5, finding the land was not available for allotment under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having purchased the land during the pendency of litigation, were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court affirmed that the initial allotment to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was subject to appeal and revision, and the petitioners could not claim valid title against the prior, superior interest of respondent No. 1. The petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's refusal to interfere.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to property purchased during the pendency of revision proceedings before a Settlement Commissioner?
- Can a party claim valid title to land purchased from an allottee whose allotment was subject to pending appeal and revision proceedings?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of a Settlement Commissioner where the petitioner failed to pursue an application to be impleaded in the proceedings?
- IQBAL BEGUM Versus HAJIRA BEGUM1976 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR JAN Versus HUSSAIN JAN1976 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, SIND1976 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
- YAQUB HUSSAIN NAQVI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1976 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL1976 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
- SHAHID ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAQVI BUTT1976 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus ABDUL HAYEE1976 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated criminal appeals arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the conviction of Abdul Hayee, who was initially sentenced to death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ghulam Abbas and one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 324 for injuring Muhammad Nawaz. The High Court had altered the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I, and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction under section 324. Muhammad Nawaz, the deceased's brother, appealed the reduction of the conviction, while Abdul Hayee appealed his conviction entirely. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court rightly applied the fourth exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the fourth exception was inapplicable because Abdul Hayee had left the scene of a sudden quarrel to fetch a formidable weapon (chhuri) from his house, thereby introducing premeditation and taking undue advantage against unarmed victims. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's alteration, restored the conviction under section 302, but modified the sentence to imprisonment for life along with a fine, maintaining the concurrent sentence for the section 324 conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the fourth exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when an accused leaves a sudden fight to fetch a weapon and returns to attack unarmed victims?
- Does fetching a weapon during a sudden quarrel constitute premeditation and taking undue advantage under criminal law?
- Can an appellate court alter a conviction under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of the essential conditions of a sudden fight without premeditation?
- ZARIN Versus STATE1976 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby a revision petition filed by the complainant was accepted, restoring the trial court's sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and enhancing the fine for an offence where the petitioner chopped off his wife's nose after she disagreed to his second marriage. The core legal question was whether the High Court is barred from enhancing a sentence in revision once the convict has already served the previously reduced sentence and been discharged from jail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses the power to enhance sentences in revision depending upon the circumstances of each case, and no absolute principle of law prohibits recommittal to prison. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can enhance a sentence in revision after the convict has been discharged from jail upon serving a previously reduced sentence?
- Does the discharge of a convict from jail operate as a bar against the enhancement of sentence by the High Court in criminal revision?
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GBANI Versus NAWAB DIN1976 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUNSHI Versus STATE1976 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Muhammad Munshi, filed a writ petition and an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming to be in possession of disputed land. Based on an affidavit affirming his possession, the High Court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering. It was subsequently discovered that the appellant had never been in possession of the land and that the affidavit was false. The High Court convicted the appellant for contempt of court. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including Khasra Girdawaris and statements made by the appellant's attorney in separate revenue suits, which confirmed the appellant was never in possession. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for contempt of court for filing a false affidavit. However, considering the significant delay since the appellant was granted bail in 1971, the Court substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a fine, with a default clause of imprisonment if the fine remained unpaid.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a false affidavit to obtain a temporary injunction constitute contempt of court?
- Can the Supreme Court substitute a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court with a fine due to the passage of time?
- Is an allottee who has never been in possession of land entitled to an injunction restraining others from interfering with possession?
- ZAKAUALLAH Versus STATE1976 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
- REHMAN DAD Versus SAJAWAL KHAN1976 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- ALAMDAR HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1976 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR BEGUN Versus MUHAMMAD SHAMAS DUHA ALI KHAN1976 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-30Read full judgment →
- MARYAM BEGUM Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD1976 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- AISHA BEGUM Versus SOSAN BIBI1976 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- SALEEM HAYAT Versus S. M. SALEH1976 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- SHAD MUHAMMAD Versus MATTER HAMEED1976 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- PRESIDENT SARHAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INSUSTRIES PESHAWAR CITY Versus THE CHAIRMAN EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
- MIR ZAMAN KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LODHI1976 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ BEGUM Versus ABDUL AZIZ1976 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- MULAKH BANO Versus GOHAR BANO1976 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR1976 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
- SAEED-UN-NISA Versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1976 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order regarding the valuation of agricultural lands for estate duty purposes. The core legal question was whether the valuation formula adopted by the Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan v. The Collector of Estate Duty—based on produce index units—constituted a rule of universal application, or if the Controller of Estate Duty could lawfully utilize the average sale price of adjoining lands. The Supreme Court held that the formula in Ahmad Khan was dictated by the specific facts and circumstances of that case and was not intended to be a rule of universal application. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Controller’s valuation method, based on market sales in the vicinity, was consistent with the statutory requirement under Section 38(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which mandates that the principal value of property be estimated at the price it would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the deceased's death. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the valuation formula based on produce index units established in Ahmad Khan v. The Collector of Estate Duty a rule of universal application?
- Does the Controller of Estate Duty have the authority to value agricultural land based on the average sale price of adjoining lands?
- What is the statutory basis for determining the principal value of property for estate duty purposes?
- MUHAMMAD-ASLAM Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1976 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- SHAH NAWAZ Versus AKBAR KHAN1976 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal questions concern the mandatory procedural requirements for filing a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules and the effect of subsequent legislation on pending matters. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was not filed in accordance with Orders III and V of the Supreme Court Rules, as the petition was neither signed by a Senior Advocate nor drawn and presented by the advocate who appeared at the original hearing without the requisite leave or consultation. Furthermore, the contention that the leave petition had abated under section 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 was rejected, as the petition had already been dismissed on merits, and any alternative remedy before a Service Tribunal, if available and within time, could be pursued independently. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules governing the filing and presentation of review petitions must be strictly complied with, and the dismissal of a leave petition renders arguments regarding subsequent abatement academic.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be entertained if it fails to comply with the procedural requirements regarding signing and drafting by advocates under the Supreme Court Rules?
- Does the abatement of a petition for leave to appeal under section 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 provide a ground for reviewing a previously dismissed leave petition?
- PRVINCE F SIND Versus GHULAM RASOOL1976 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- PRVINCE -OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL AZIZ1976 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal questions were whether the appeals were maintainable without obtaining leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution and whether the significant delay in filing applications for leave to appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were incompetent as the Provincial Government failed to obtain the requisite leave to appeal under Article 58(2) of the 1962 Constitution. Furthermore, the Court refused to condone the delay in filing the leave applications, noting that the delay was due to manifest laches by government law officers and that valuable rights had accrued to the respondents in the interim. On the merits, the Court observed that the compensation awarded was equitable, given that the land's current market value far exceeded the compensation provided. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not condone significant delays in filing leave applications where such delay results from administrative negligence and prejudices the accrued rights of the opposing party.
Questions settled- Is an appeal filed without obtaining the requisite leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution competent?
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing an application for leave to appeal where the delay is caused by the negligence of government law officers?
- Does the Court have discretion to refuse condonation of delay when valuable rights have accrued to the respondents?
- SAKINA BIBI Versus SULTAN1976 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- FEROZA BEGUN Versus AMTUL FAROQ1976 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05Read full judgment →
- PALTA Versus ISLAMUDDIN1976 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH Versus NISAR AHMAD1976 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a civil appeal. The core legal question concerned the consequences of the repeated absence of counsel for the appellant, which resulted in the inability of the Court to proceed with the scheduled hearing. The appellant's lead counsel requested an adjournment via telegram due to a personal engagement in another city, while the Advocate-on-Record for the appellant was also absent without justification. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this conduct, noting that it was part of a broader pattern where multiple appeals fixed for the day could not be heard due to the absence of appellants' counsel, leaving the Court with no work. Consequently, the Court held that it had no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not tolerate the unexplained absence of legal representatives, including the Advocate-on-Record, which obstructs the administration of justice and wastes judicial time, thereby justifying the dismissal of the underlying cause for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant's counsel is absent?
- Does the absence of an Advocate-on-Record justify the dismissal of an appeal?
- Is a telegraphic request for adjournment sufficient to prevent the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution?
- AHMAD SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL1976 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUR RAZZAQ1976 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus RAWALPINDI IMPROVEMENT TRUST, RAWALPINDI1976 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER MIANWALI1976 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
- YUSAF HUSSAIN SIDDIQI Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR1976 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BIBI Versus MUBARAK HUSSAIN1976 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the cancellation of a property transfer by the Settlement Authorities. The respondent, Mubarak Hussain, purchased rights to an evacuee house and paid the balance price using a verified claim (compensation book). Years later, the petitioner alleged the compensation book was forged. Without conducting a formal inquiry or providing notice to the respondent, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer and re-allotted the property to the petitioner. The High Court remanded the case for an inquiry into the authenticity of the compensation book and directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to pay the deficiency if the document was found forged. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, holding that the Settlement Authorities acted prematurely by cancelling the transfer without first establishing the forgery through a proper inquiry or granting the respondent a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court affirmed that before such drastic action as cancellation, the authorities must verify the alleged forgery and allow the party to rectify the payment, provided they were not complicit in the fraud.
Questions settled- Can the Settlement Authorities cancel a property transfer based on an allegation of a forged compensation book without holding a formal inquiry?
- Is a party entitled to an opportunity to make good a deficiency in the sale price of a property before the transfer is cancelled due to an invalid payment instrument?
- Does the failure to provide notice to a party regarding an alleged forgery in their payment instrument violate the principles of natural justice?
- MUHAMMAD AZBAR KHAN Versus SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD1976 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Wireless Licensee Inspector compulsorily retired on charges of misconduct, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Services Tribunal as barred by time. He contended that the delay occurred because the definition of 'civil servant' under the relevant legislation was amended only later to include persons who have been civil servants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the matter raised a question of law of general public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the refusal by the Services Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal does not constitute a question of law of general public importance, and therefore the Court cannot interfere with the Tribunal's order. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over orders of the Services Tribunal under Article 212 is strictly restricted to substantial questions of law of general public importance, excluding routine matters of limitation and condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Does the refusal by the Services Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal constitute a question of law of general public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Services Tribunal regarding the limitation period when no question of law of general public importance is involved?
- YAR BEG Versus GUL NAZ1976 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus LAB DIN1976 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →