Binding effect

Any decision rendered by Supreme Court, under Article 189 of the Constitution [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which resolves a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, is binding upon all other Courts within Pakistan, with the exception of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

Such exception arises from the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which establishes that decisions issued by Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all Courts in Pakistan, including Supreme Court itself

All Courts in Pakistan are Constitutionally mandated to adhere to the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Revenue Authorities passed orders against the petitioners qua an adjustment order for which they had decree passed by Civil Court in their favour

Validity

Record revealed that adjustment order-in-question was passed on the basis of a civil court decree having been passed about three decades ago (in the year 1993), which had attained finality

Revenue officers are bound to honour civil court judgments which cannot be upset or reversed by revenue authorities

In the present case, the Revenue authority acted in disregard of limitation, ignored binding civil decree, and exceeded jurisdiction

Core issue had already been adjudicated up to the level of the High Court, wherein it was held that the petitioners had established their possession

However, the Revenue Authorities failed to take into consideration the binding decisions of the civil courts, which had already been duly upheld by the appellate/District as well as the revisional/High court

The long-standing entries of revenue record in favour of petitioners enjoy presumption of correctness which could not be casually unsettled

Moreover, the concerned Revenue Authorities implemented the said orders at their own sweet will as nothing specific was mentioned in the impugned order, as to what was the error in record and how and in which manner it was to be corrected; in such way over 3000 Kanals of pure TDA owned land has been mutated in favour of the respondent who subsequently sold it to various people illegally

Said subsequent sale of land during pendency of lis was illegal and void

Member-Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities declaring the same to be without lawful authority, void ab initio, of no legal effect; consequently , any action taken pursuant to the impugned orders in the revenue record stood annulled forthwith

Revenue Revisions were allowed accordingly.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other courts in Pakistan.

Pakistan, as per Art. 1 of the Constitution , is a federal republic and the territories of Pakistan have been mentioned therein

The High Court of each federating unit is independent, and fortiori that acts independently

There is no constitutional provision that supports the binding effect of the judgment of one High Court upon the other as provision of Art. 201 of the Constitution states so, which is iterated by Art. 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan

While a decision of a High Court is persuasive and may be followed by another High Court, it is not binding on it and another High Court may make a different decision.

Registered person (Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Ltd. /SNGPL) filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue against order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) whereby he upheld the disallowance of input tax claimed in respect of UFG (Un-accounted For Gas) over and above the permissible limit as determined by the OGRA and input tax claimed under S. 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Argument of the respondent / Department was that a decision of larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Tribunal') was not binding on the present (smaller / Division) Bench of the Tribunal

Validity

Previously, there were some conflicting judgments of the Tribunal on the issue-in-hand, hence during the course of hearing of company's appeal STA No.833/LB/2016, a miscellaneous application was given for the constitution of Larger Bench to resolve the controversy

Larger Bench of the Tribunal was constituted on the request of the taxpayer and matter was decided in favour of company

There can be hardly any dispute that the Tribunal is a competent authority to pronounce on a question of law arising under the law including issue-in-hand, and it functions in a quasi-judicial manner ; its decisions are to be followed by the lower authorities unless these are upset by a higher Court

According to a precedent followed by it, the Chairman of the Tribunal can constitute a larger Bench to resolve the conflicting views of various Benches of the Tribunal on the same issue

The decisions of such Larger Benches are binding on smaller Benches unless overruled by the High Courts or the Supreme Court or are distinguishable on facts clearly

Therefore, a decision of a larger Bench of the Tribunal has greater value as a precedent and it has to be preferred over the views expressed by the smaller Benches

Further, on the smaller Benches the view of larger Bench is binding

Viewed in this background, the appellant had rightly contended that the CIR(A) committed an error prejudicial to the interests of the appellant's rights when he failed to notice the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal

Argument of the Department was misconceived that the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal are not binding on smaller bench

Appellate Tribunal, following the ratio decendi settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in STA No.833/LB/2016, held that the Appellant (SNGPL) was entitled to input tax adjustment/claim incurred in respect of Un-accounted For Gas (UFG)

Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) erred in law while upholding the disallowance of input tax on this account after completely ignoring the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal which was against the lawful rights of the appellant

Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)

Appeal filed by registered person (SNGPL) was allowed, in circumstances.

Judgments of the Supreme Court unless declared otherwise operate prospectively.

Earlier suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was withdrawn unilaterally thereafter they filed instant suit for implementing a promise made by appellant/defendant in earlier proceedings

Trial Court rejected the plaint but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Validity

Statement was given in absence of opponent party and even without any notice on application to withdraw earlier suit

Compromise could become effective only when the two or more parties agreed to settle a real or supposed claim in which each party had surrendered something in concession to each other

Unilateral statement given by respondents/plaintiffs and that too in absence of other side could not be taken as mutual concession or mutual promise, having any binding effect, especially when statement regarding so-called out of court compromise was not backed by any document

Such statement did not fulfill requirements of O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C., which necessitated satisfaction of the Court

If such an easy way of escaping restriction contained in O. XXIII, R. 1(3), C.P.C. by simply giving unilateral statement as to compromise was permitted, the very purpose of the provision of O. XXIII, C.P.C., would be negated

High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that Notification S.R.O.No.1086(K)61, dated 09-11-1961 was not applicable as it had been struck down by Islamabad High Court

Validity

No verdict as such was passed by Lahore High Court, therefore, Notification S.R.O.No.1086(K)61, dated 09-11-1961, was fully in vogue in Punjab

Relief could not go beyond provincial boundary to affect any other province or Area or its people.

When a subsequent Bench of the High Court comprising of same numbers of Judges, did not wish to agree with the view of earlier Benches on the same point then instead of giving a different view, it had to request for the constitution of Larger Bench to revisit the earlier view of the Court

Wisdom behind honouring the earlier view of the Benches of the same High Court by the subsequent Bench on the same point of law, was to maintain harmony in the decisions of the Court on the same point of law

If, a Bench of equal numbers of Judges, was permitted to give a different view than the earlier view of the Bench of equal numbers of Judges on the same point of law, it would certainly create chaos and confusion, not only for the public at large, but also for the Courts, subordinate to the High Court.

Decision given by a superior judicial forum is binding on the lower hierarchy.

Decision given by a superior judicial forum is binding on the lower hierarchy.

Scope.

View expressed by a Bench of greater numerical strength is to be followed even if same was expressed prior in time to a different view expressed by a Bench of smaller numerical strength at some subsequent stage.

Any decision of Supreme Court to the extent it had decided a question of law or was based upon or enunciated a principle of law was binding on all the Courts.

Any decision of Supreme Court to the extent it had decided a question of law or was based upon or enunciated a principle of law was binding on all the Courts.

Order/act of any subordinate authority was not precedent and had no binding effect on the courts to be followed and for considering any case whether discrimination had been meted out or not.

Any decision of Supreme Court to the extent that it had decided a question of law or was based upon or enunciated a principle of law was binding on all other courts in Pakistan

All judicial and executive authorities were bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Scope.

Principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir was binding on all the Courts and functionaries in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Decision of Supreme Court to the extent that it decided a question of law or enunciated a principle of law would be binding on all other Courts in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Any decision of the Supreme Court deciding a question of law or based upon or enunciating a principle of law, was binding on all other courts in the country.

Judgment of Supreme Court had binding force upon all the organs of the State.

Even obiter dictum of Supreme Court enjoyed a respected position.

Role of Accountability Court under S.9(c) of the Ordinance while acting as a check and balance on the Chairman's power to close an investigation was to review all the material placed before him albeit in a cursory manner

After applying judicial mind as envisaged under S.24-A General Clauses Act 1897, the court had to pass an order with reasons regarding approval of the closure or otherwise

Accountability Court could make recommendations of further avenues of inquiry

Recommendations of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau had no binding effect on Accountability Court.

Decision of Supreme Court to the extent that it had decided a question of law or enunciated a principle of law was binding on all other courts in Pakistan.

Decision of Supreme Court to the extent that it had decided question of law or enunciated a principle of law was binding on all other courts in Pakistan.

Judgment passed by any Court including High Court contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court would be a judgment per incuriam.

Any decision of Supreme Court to the extent that it had decided the question of law was binding upon all the other Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Decision of Supreme Court was binding on all the courts in Pakistan.

Where there was conflict between two decisions of Supreme Court, decision of larger Bench would prevail.

Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court would be considered as precedent and same would be binding on all other courts to the extent it had decided a question of law or was based upon or enunciated a principle of law.

Dictum of Supreme Court was binding on all the subordinate courts.

Judgment of Supreme Court was binding on each and every organ of the State.

Judgment of Supreme Court was binding on each and every organ of the State.

Merely because plaintiffs had taken a separate ground which was not raised before a Division Bench of High Court while declaring that commercialization of road in question as lawful, was not enough to go against earlier judgment of Division Bench of High Court by ignoring Art.189 of the Constitution

Division Bench of High Court of same High Court had status of law pronounced by Court and had binding effect on all Courts subordinate to it including Single Bench of High Court.

Decision of Supreme Court deciding a question of law or enunciating a principle of law was binding on all the other courts in Pakistan.

Parties were bound by their pleadings and could not be permitted to resile therefrom according to their whims and wishes.

Order for suspension of operation of an earlier decree through any other suit was not permissible unless such decree had been set aside.

Judgment of the Supreme Court would have due effect and deference if it decided a question of law; if it was passed upon the basis of law, and if it enunciated the principle of law.

Such Circulars/ Instructions issued by State Bank of Pakistan were binding upon all concerned.

Judgment of High Court was binding upon the presiding officer of a court which was subordinate to the said High Court.

Such judgment would be binding on all organs of the State including Subordinate Courts.

Scope.