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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Abdullah vs Evacuee Trust Property and another2019 YLR 2737, 2019 LHC 1936 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aarez Ali vs Multan Development Authority through Director General and 19 others2019 CLC 155 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mudassir Manzoor vs The State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1497, 2019 LHC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29
  rapebenefit of doubtcriminal appealperjurymedical evidencecorroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences including rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the victim's testimony was inconsistent, medical evidence failed to corroborate the allegation of sexual assault, and co-accused with identical roles had already been acquitted by the trial court. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide unimpeachable evidence. It found that the victim's testimony was unreliable, marked by material improvements, and unsupported by medical findings. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused persons attributed effective roles, they cannot be believed against other accused persons with similar roles without independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt. Additionally, the Court directed proceedings for perjury against a prosecution witness who provided false testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused persons with identical roles?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to support allegations of sexual assault create a reasonable doubt in a rape case?
  • Can a court initiate proceedings for perjury against a witness who provides false testimony in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar etc vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 30 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealacquittalcorroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the necessity of corroborative evidence, and the legal validity of forensic reports where the weapon and crime empties were dispatched to the laboratory simultaneously. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the eye-witnesses contradicted each other, their conduct was unnatural, and their testimony conflicted with medical evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the motive, and the forensic report was deemed inconsequential because the weapon and empty casings were forwarded to the laboratory together. The Court emphasized that where eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular evidence when the testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and natural human conduct?
  • Is a forensic report reliable when the recovered weapon and crime empties are sent to the laboratory on the same day?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the same ocular testimony necessitate independent corroboration for the remaining accused?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the motive in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Hussain vs Syed Hussain Abbas, etc2019 CLC 1417, 2019 LHC 1562 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ijaz Awan vs Federation of Pakistan through President and 62019 PCTLR 569, PTCL 2019 CL. 325, 2019 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waris Jan vs Liaqat Ali, etc2019 PLD Lahore 333, 2019 LHC 190 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-14
  specific performanceagreement to sellnovation of contractilliterate grantornon est factumburden of proofreadiness and willingnessbona fide purchasercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land filed by the plaintiff against an illiterate seller (first defendant) and subsequent purchasers (second defendants). The plaintiff alleged an initial agreement, novated by a subsequent agreement to sell, with partial payment and delivery of possession. The defendants denied the sale, alleging fraud and asserting that the land was merely leased. The Lahore High Court allowed the revision and dismissed the suit. The ratio of the judgment establishes that under novation of contract, the party asserting novation must prove the prior valid agreement and its cancellation, which requires producing the written document per Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. For an illiterate vendor, the beneficiary must prove that the contents were read over, adequately explained, and that the illiterate party received independent, disinterested advice. An illiterate relative's presence does not fulfill this requirement. Additionally, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must strictly plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform, including tendering the balance purchase money on the agreed date or depositing it upon first appearance in court, failing which relief is barred under Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

  Questions settled

  • What elements must a party prove to establish a novation of contract under Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie when an illiterate person executes an agreement to sell?
  • Does the presence of an illiterate spouse satisfy the requirement of independent advice for an illiterate vendor executing a contract?
  • How does a failure to tender balance sale consideration or deposit it at first appearance in court affect a claim for specific performance under Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can oral evidence be produced to prove the contents of a written agreement when the written document itself is not produced before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs The State and another2019 PC.r LJ 1297 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-02
  pre-arrest bailabsconsionrule of consistencylalkaraheinous offenceliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether a female accused, assigned only the role of raising a lalkara and having a history of absconsion, is entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of consistency with a co-accused already granted bail and the explanation offered for her absence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail already granted. The court laid down the principles that mere absconsion does not disentitle an accused to bail if a proper case is otherwise made out, especially when considering the protective role of a mother fleeing with young children to avoid retaliatory violence, and that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused with a more active role has been admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absconsion alone is sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail when a proper case for bail is otherwise made out?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused assigned the role of lalkara when a co-accused with a more active role has already been released on bail?
  • Whether surrender before a judicial forum is equivalent to surrender before the police in the context of absconsion?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sidra Asif vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2019 YLR 2692 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Regional Police Officer, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 65 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahla Faiz vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Education, Lahore2019 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sehar Gull vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-25
  quashing of proceedingsCall Detail Recordproduction of evidenceinvestigating officer inactionfair trialcriminal procedurerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed an application by the complainant to place Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence on the record, which had not been collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation but was mentioned in the initial complaint. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was improper because the CDR data was relevant evidence clearly referenced in the complaint and the complainant should not suffer due to the Investigating Officer's inaction. The Court upheld the Revisional Court's order allowing the production of this evidence. The key principle laid down is that under Sections 94 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is obligated to ensure justice by allowing the prosecution to substantiate its version, particularly when the evidence in question is not a surprise and is relevant to the case, thereby ensuring a fair adjudication of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant be allowed to produce evidence not collected by the Investigating Officer if it was mentioned in the initial complaint?
  • Does the trial court have the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to allow the production of relevant evidence to ensure justice?
  • Is the inaction of an Investigating Officer a valid ground to prevent the prosecution from producing relevant evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwari Begum & Another vs Malik Mukhtar Ahmad & Another2019 CLC 1836, 2019 LHC 1671 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sanober Bibi vs Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan and 2 others2019 MLD 1696 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Kausar vs Anayat Ali and others2020 [M] C L R 872, 2019 CLC 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Bibi vs The State etc2019 LHC 1580, 2019 PCRLJ 1363 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-28
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtstatement of accusedqatl-i-amdcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case primarily rested on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, recovery of a weapon, various personal effects, and a judicial confession made by the female appellant at a belated stage before the trial court. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and procedural legality of recording a confessional statement under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the verge of recording statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as well as the reliance on retracted confessions and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence where the prosecution fails to prove its primary case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case through independent and reliable evidence, that the extra-judicial and judicial confessions were legally flawed and of no evidentiary value, and that an accused cannot be convicted solely on a statement under Section 342 when the prosecution fails. The court laid down that a confessional statement under Section 304 PPC cannot be recorded at an advanced stage of trial after prosecution evidence is closed, and that failure of the prosecution to prove the charge entitles the accused to acquittal regardless of any self-exculpatory or incriminatory statements made by the accused. The appeals were consequently allowed and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can record a confessional statement under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the belated stage of the trial after the conclusion of prosecution evidence?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of a judicial confession recorded with undue delay and without following proper statutory procedures?
  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple co-accused persons sufficient to maintain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect on a conviction if the prosecution entirely fails to prove its primary case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bibi, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2020 [M] C L R 1003, 2019 PLD Lahore 502, 2019 LHC 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bibi vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1052 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailshort sentencecriminal appealbail bondfemale convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner, Mst. Safia Bibi, who was convicted and sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment under Section 338-C/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and one year under Section 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female convict, was entitled to the suspension of her sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of her appeal, given the duration of her remaining sentence. The Lahore High Court, after reviewing the record and noting that the petitioner had a remaining sentence of over five years and seven months, held that the sentence was sufficiently short to warrant relief. Relying on established judicial precedents regarding the suspension of short sentences, the Court accepted the petition. It held that the absence of a likelihood of the main appeal being fixed for hearing in the near future, combined with the petitioner's gender, constituted valid grounds for granting bail, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Does a remaining sentence of over five years qualify as a short sentence for the purpose of suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Is the gender of a convict a relevant factor when considering the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
  • Can a sentence be suspended when there is no immediate likelihood of the main appeal being fixed for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Majeed vs Additional District Judge and others2019 YLR 84 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasoolan Bibi vs Muhammad Aslam etc2019 MLD 1041, 2019 LHC 110 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabyia Ilyyas vs Asj, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 452, 2019 LHC 488 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen vs The State etc2020 MLD 452, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1122, 2019 LHC 773 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  acquittalprivate complaintpower to acquit at any stagesection 265-k cr.p.c.statement of accusedpresumption of truth in judicial proceedingsbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, acquitting the respondents in a private complaint under Sections 302, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant contended that the acquittal was illegal because it was done without recording the statements of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no written application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ever filed. The Lahore High Court held that a trial court is empowered under Section 265-K to acquit an accused at any stage without recording a statement under Section 342 if there is no probability of conviction, and that filing a written application is not strictly mandatory since the court can act on its own motion or oral request. Furthermore, judicial proceedings carry a presumption of correctness under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court's appreciation of evidence or the extension of the benefit of the doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 without recording his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the filing of a written application mandatory for the exercise of powers by a trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of judicial proceedings regarding the recording of an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in light of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal once the accused has attained double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Bibi vs The State & 3 others2020 PLD Lahore 332, 2019 LHC 3649 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Perveen vs S.H.O etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 910 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-01
  habeas corpuscustody of minorsparental jurisdictionwelfare of minorshazanatillegal detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed by the mother of three minor children, alleging their illegal detention by their father, the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising its parental jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could restore custody of minors to the mother despite pending guardianship proceedings. The Court observed that the mother held the primary right of hazanat given the minors' ages and noted that one child was being denied education and forced into labor at a workshop. The Court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbiter for permanent custody, the High Court is not precluded from intervening to protect the welfare of minors and restore custody to a parent unlawfully deprived of it. The petition was allowed, and custody was restored to the mother, with directions for visitation rights for the father and a mandate that the pending guardianship proceedings proceed independently on their own merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody of minors when guardianship proceedings are already pending?
  • Does the pendency of a custody application before a Guardian Court preclude the High Court from passing interim orders regarding the welfare and custody of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Parveen vs SHO Police Station Jaleel Abad Multan and 32020 KLR Criminal Cases 323, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 910, 2019 YLR 2244, PLJ 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-01
  habeas corpuscustody of minorshazanatguardian courtwelfare of minorsparental jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother alleging the illegal detention of her three minor children by their father, who had snatched them from her custody. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional or statutory powers, can restore the custody of minors to a parent when guardianship proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Court. The Lahore High Court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbiter for custody, the High Court exercises parental jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ensure the welfare of minors and remedy unlawful deprivation of custody. The court allowed the petition, granted custody of the minors to the mother, and laid down the principle that the pendency of proceedings before a Guardian Court does not bar the High Court from granting immediate relief in habeas corpus to safeguard the physical and emotional well-being of minors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pendency of an application before a Guardian Court bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of minors?
  • Can a parent seek immediate restoration of custody through a habeas corpus petition when unlawfully deprived of a minor's custody by the other parent?
  • What are the parameters for exercising parental jurisdiction regarding the welfare and custody of minor children in habeas corpus matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naveed Waseem vs Miani Sahib Graveyard Committee through Additional Deputy Commissioner2019 CLC 616 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseer Bibi and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 374 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationtheftmischieffirst offendermala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 466 dated 16.10.2018 registered under Sections 379 and 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chouhara, District Layyah, regarding allegations of mischief and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of corroborative evidence, unexplained delay in reporting, and lack of recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the application should be allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed, noting an unexplained delay of two days in reporting the incident, no eyewitnesses, general allegations, no recovery from the petitioners, minimal estimated cost of the stolen property, and no previous criminal record indicating first-offender status and potential mala fide. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the allegations are general, recovery has not been effected, the accused have joined investigation, and mala fide can be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is an unexplained delay in reporting the incident and no eyewitnesses?
  • Is bail appropriate where the allegations are general in nature and no recovery has been effected from the accused?
  • How is mala fide deduced in matters relating to pre-arrest bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naghmana Zaidi vs Tayyaba Begum (deceased) through L.Rs2019 PLJ Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Meeran Mai vs Muhammad Ramzan2019 CLC 1706 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima and others vs Najeeb Ullah and another2020 CLC 780, 2019 LHC 4331 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farrah Naz and another vs Malik Shahbaz Ali and another2019 PLJ Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Bibi vs SHO, etc2019 PLD Lahore 380, 2019 PLJ Lahore 425, 2019 LHC 697 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiza Ikram vs Imran Muzaffar etc2020 [M] C L R 1, 2019 PLD Lahore 715, 2019 LHC 1868 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chandni Asad vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 96, 2019 LHC 2476 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-15
  pensionary benefitsqualifying servicecivil service regulationsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightswidow's pensionforfeiture of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a widow seeking pensionary benefits for her late husband, a former employee of Pakistan Railways, after the department refused payment citing insufficient qualifying service and other alleged defaults. The core legal question was whether the deceased had completed the mandatory 25 years of service required for pension eligibility, considering periods of authorized leave and deputation. The Court held that the deceased’s service, including periods of authorized absence, met the qualifying criteria. Relying on the Civil Service Regulations, the Court determined that resignation under the circumstances did not entail forfeiture of past service and that authorized leave periods must be computed towards pensionable service. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that pension is a vested right, not a bounty, and its denial violates fundamental rights regarding dignity and property. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, affirming that the arbitrary withholding of such entitlements is unlawful and contrary to the constitutional protection of property rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does resignation from government service automatically entail the forfeiture of past service for pension purposes?
  • Are periods of authorized leave and deputation included in the computation of qualifying service for pension?
  • Is the right to receive pension a form of property protected under the Constitution?
  • Can a government department deny pensionary benefits to a widow based on alleged service defaults not established through disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra vs District Police Officer, etc.2020 MLD 1891, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1435 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-29
  HazanatCustody of minorParental jurisdictionIllegal detentionGuardian CourtHabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery of a two-year-old minor son from the alleged illegal detention of his father, the respondent. The petitioner, being the mother, asserted her right of hazanat, claiming the child was forcibly taken from her. The respondent argued that custody matters should be exclusively determined by the Guardian Court, where proceedings under the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 were already pending. The Court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbitrator for permanent custody, the High Court, in exercising its parental jurisdiction under Section 491, is not precluded from intervening to restore custody to a parent who has been unlawfully deprived of it, especially to ensure the minor's welfare. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate restoration of the minor's custody to the mother, while directing that the pending Guardian Court proceedings continue on their own merits and ensuring the father's visitation rights were preserved.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody of a minor when proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Court?
  • Does the pendency of a case before a Guardian Court preclude the High Court from intervening to ensure the immediate welfare of a minor?
  • Is a mother entitled to the custody of a two-year-old child under the principle of hazanat when the child has been forcibly removed by the father?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 91 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-14
  criminal appealextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceacquittalstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband, while her co-accused was acquitted. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, comprising an extra-judicial confession, medical evidence coupled with a chemical examiner's report, and a recovery. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an extra-judicial confession as a weak type of piece of evidence without independent corroboration, and whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on medical and expert evidence when the co-accused alleged to have committed the primary act has been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the extra-judicial confession was contradictory, uncorroborated, and did not inspire confidence, and that expert and medical evidence alone cannot pinpoint the culprit. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, laying down the principle that an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and medical evidence without direct links are insufficient to sustain a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession without strong independent corroboration?
  • Whether medical and chemical examiner reports alone can pinpoint the perpetrator of a crime in the absence of direct or reliable circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused charged with the primary fatal act impact the sustainability of a conviction against a remaining accused whose role is secondary?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Abdul Maleek vs Addl. District Judge, etc2020 YLR 401, 2019 LHC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asiya Ashraf Chaudhary vs Government of the Punjab etc2020 CLC 503, 2019 LHC 4039 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Commissioner Sahiwal Division/Chairman2019 PLC (C.S.) 1452 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11
  service mattertransfer of civil servantjurisdictional barArticle 212writ jurisdictionService Tribunalterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a civil servant challenging an order of transfer, alleging that she was ignored in favor of a candidate with lower merit marks. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to have her departmental representations decided. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate upon the transfer of a civil servant, notwithstanding the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that Article 212 is a non-obstante provision that prevails over Article 199, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction. It further clarified that the statutory process of filing departmental representations and awaiting a decision cannot be bypassed or frustrated by invoking constitutional jurisdiction, as the pendency of such representations does not render a civil servant remediless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, prevail over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court while a departmental representation is pending before the relevant authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Nazia vs State through SHO, etc2019 PLD Lahore 373, 2019 PLJ Lahore 281, 2019 LHC 694 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18
  writ petitionquashing of FIRlocus standiaggrieved personconstitutional jurisdictionabducteemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an alleged abductee seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an abductee or a prosecution witness possesses the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for the quashing of an FIR. The Court examined the definition of an "aggrieved person" in the context of constitutional jurisdiction, relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court held that an abductee or a witness does not qualify as an "aggrieved party" because the registration of an FIR against others does not infringe upon their fundamental rights, nor does it cause them a legal grievance or loss. Consequently, the Court upheld the office objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, ruling that an abductee or witness lacks the necessary standing to invoke the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does an alleged abductee have the locus standi to file a constitutional petition for the quashing of an FIR?
  • Can a prosecution witness be considered an aggrieved party for the purpose of invoking Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a person who is not an accused in the FIR but seeks its quashing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Sadaf Munir Khan vs Chairman, Reconciliation Committee and 22019 PLD Lahore 285 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-08
  territorial jurisdictiondivorce certificatenotice of talaqMuslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961overseas Pakistanisreconciliation committeeRule 3(b)
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenging an order and a Divorce Certificate issued by the Chairman, Reconciliation Committee, Cantonment Board, Walton Cantt., Lahore, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a local Union Council Chairman in Pakistan possesses territorial jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, read with Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when both spouses were dual nationals permanently residing abroad at the time of the alleged pronouncement of talaq. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the impugned order and Divorce Certificate to be of no legal effect. The Court held that under Rule 3(b), jurisdiction is primarily determined by where the wife resided at the time of pronouncement. It established that for Pakistani nationals residing permanently abroad, Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)/61 under Section 2(b) provides an enabling mechanism designating Pakistan missions abroad as the appropriate forum to exercise the powers of the Chairman under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Which Union Council holds territorial jurisdiction under Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 to entertain a notice of talaq when the wife resides abroad at the time of pronouncement?
  • Does a local Union Council Chairman in Pakistan have jurisdiction to issue a divorce certificate under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 if neither spouse resided within his territorial jurisdiction at the relevant time?
  • What is the legal effect and application of Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)/61 issued under Section 2(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 regarding Pakistanis permanently residing abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Nazia Munir vs The Government of the Punjab etc2020 [M] C L R 1525, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1077, 2019 LHC 699 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11
  ad-hoc appointmentregularization of servicelegitimate expectancynatural justiceconstitutional petitionarbitrary terminationsubstantial justicecivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, who served as a Statistical Officer (BS-17) on an ad-hoc basis for over eight years. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization of service given her long tenure and whether her termination, executed without notice or a hearing, was lawful. The Court held that the termination orders were arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. It found that the petitioner’s repeated service extensions created a legitimate expectancy of regularization. The Court emphasized that technicalities must not obstruct substantial justice and that public authorities cannot act whimsically to the detriment of citizens. By terminating the petitioner after she had become overage, the authority effectively destroyed her future employment prospects. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement. The judgment reaffirms that state functionaries must act fairly and that long-term ad-hoc appointees, whose services were consistently deemed satisfactory by the employer, are entitled to protection against arbitrary removal and are eligible for regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeated extension of an ad-hoc appointment create a legitimate expectancy for regularization of service?
  • Can a public authority terminate an employee who has served for several years without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing?
  • Should technicalities of law be allowed to defeat substantial justice in cases of employment termination?
  • Is a government authority permitted to act arbitrarily in the termination of an employee who has become overage due to the authority's own administrative delays?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Kausar Rasheed and 2 others vs Project Director, National2019 CLC 1718 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ifrah Murtaza and another vs Government of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Lahore 565 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-24
  habeas corpusproclamationproclaimed offenderExit Control Listred noticesNAB inquiryfundamental rightsextradition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the nature of habeas corpus by the wife of the detenu, challenging his detention by the Interpol in Dubai (UAE) based on red notices, warrants of arrest, and other proceedings initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and orders passed by the Accountability Court, Lahore. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition by a spouse when the detenu is abroad and has been subsequently released, whether such a petition becomes infructuous upon release, and the legality of the proclamation proceedings, perpetual warrants, and placement on the Exit Control List (ECL). The Lahore High Court held that the petition was maintainable, did not become infructuous upon release, and that the actions taken by NAB and the Accountability Court were tainted with mala fides, lacking evidence and independent application of mind, and violating statutory procedures. The court laid down key principles regarding the protection of personal liberty, mandatory procedural requirements under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 17(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, and the unconstitutionality of mechanical placements on the Exit Control List without a hearing or independent reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition in the nature of habeas corpus can be maintained by the wife of a detenu who is detained outside Pakistan?
  • Does a habeas corpus petition become infructuous merely upon the subsequent release of the detenu from foreign custody?
  • Can an Accountability Court issue a proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence to satisfy itself that the accused has absconded?
  • Whether the placement of a citizen's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) mechanically on the recommendation of NAB without an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law?
  • Are red notices issued by the Interpol sustainable when the underlying proclamation and perpetual warrants of arrest issued by an Accountability Court are declared illegal and void?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Faryal Talpur vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 6 others2020 PLD Lahore 122, 2019 LHC 3171 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Aasia Rizvi and others vs Mian Muhammad Aslam and others2019 CLC 1333, 2019 LHC 288 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-24
  partition suitrejection of plaintpiecemeal rejectionjoint holdingco-ownershipamendment of pleadingsnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for partition of an undivided joint holding against several respondents. During the proceedings, the petitioners impleaded respondent No. 26. Subsequently, respondent No. 26 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint specifically against him, which the trial court granted, and the appellate court upheld. The core legal question was whether a plaint can be rejected in part (piecemeal) against a specific defendant under Order VII, Rule 11. The High Court held that the concept of partial rejection of a plaint is alien to the law. The court ruled that Order VII, Rule 11 does not permit piecemeal rejection; instead, if a plaint suffers from defects, the court should exercise its powers under Order VI, Rule 17 to allow for amendments. The court emphasized that a purchaser of land from a joint holding becomes a co-owner, and the suit for partition must proceed against all necessary parties, setting aside the lower courts' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected in part or piecemeal against a specific defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a purchaser of land from an unpartitioned joint holding considered a co-owner of that holding?
  • Should a court reject a plaint for technical defects or allow an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Shafqat Raza Thaheem vs Mr. Mehroz Aziz Khan NiaziPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 462 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testcriminal revisionjuvenile accusedprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application to be declared a juvenile in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for juvenility without conducting the mandatory inquiry prescribed by law, particularly when the petitioner relied on NADRA records to assert he was under 18 at the time of the alleged occurrence. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because the trial court failed to follow the procedural mandate of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, directing the trial court to conduct a proper inquiry, including an ossification test, to determine the petitioner's age. The key principle laid down is that the determination of juvenility is a mandatory statutory duty that requires a formal inquiry, including medical evidence, regardless of the stage of trial at which the plea is raised, as the statute imposes no time limitation for such an application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to conduct a formal inquiry, including a medical report, when a plea of juvenility is raised by an accused?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 impose a time limitation or specific stage for filing an application to determine the age of an accused?
  • Is the trial court obligated to determine the age of an accused through an ossification test when the accused claims to be a juvenile?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Arif and others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 77 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29
  contractual employmentfixed-term contractmaster and servantvested rightconstitutional petitionservice tenuretermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by contract employees of the Population Welfare Department, Government of the Punjab, challenging an order dated 22.06.2018. The impugned order informed relevant authorities that the petitioners' contracts would expire on 30.06.2018, as per the terms of their engagement. The petitioners alleged this constituted premature termination without the required one-month notice. The core legal question was whether the expiration of a fixed-term contract constitutes termination requiring notice, and whether contract employees possess a vested right to the extension of their service tenure. The Court held that the impugned order was merely an intimation of the natural expiry of the contract term, not a premature termination. Consequently, no notice was required. The Court affirmed that contract employees have no vested right to the extension of their service, which remains the prerogative of the employer. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that employees not governed by statutory service rules fall under the principle of Master and Servant, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of a fixed-term contract constitute a termination that requires a notice period?
  • Do contract employees have a vested right to the extension of their service tenure?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for employees governed by the principle of Master and Servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sohail Munir and others vs Addl. District Judge & others2019 LHC 1883 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
• Miani Sahib Graveyard vs Encroachers and others2019 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Sharif vs National Accountability Bureau and others2019 P Cr. L J 302 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13
  post-arrest baildelay in trialconstitutional petitionNational Accountability Bureauright to fair trialstatutory delayNAB Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in Accountability Reference No. 13 of 2017 involving allegations of misappropriation and embezzlement during land acquisition. The core legal question was whether an accused person can be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the trial has not concluded despite the lapse of significant time and without the delay being attributable to the accused. The Lahore High Court held that inordinate and undue delay in the conclusion of a trial, where the accused is not at fault, constitutes a valid ground for granting bail to prevent pre-trial punishment and to uphold the fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to an abuse of the process of law, tipping the scales of justice in favor of bail rather than continued detention.

  Questions settled

  • Does prolonged incarceration without the prospect of a near-conclusion of trial entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether inordinate delay in the prosecution of an accused person amounts to an abuse of the process of law justifying the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused person entitled to a speedy and expeditious trial as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan and 42019 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26
  Exit Control Listfundamental rightsright to travelconstitutional petitionpendency of inquiryNAB investigationmalafide executive action
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) on the recommendation of the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal question was whether the mere pendency of an inquiry or investigation by accountability authorities constitutes sufficient justification for curtailing a citizen's fundamental right to travel and movement. The Lahore High Court held that placing a citizen's name on the ECL based merely on a pending inquiry, without independent application of mind, adequate reasons, or finalized proceedings, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of executive power violating constitutional guarantees. The court established that the fundamental right of movement under Article 15 of the Constitution cannot be mechanically or restrictively curtailed through executive action without valid, objective, and sustainable grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere pendency of an inquiry or investigation by the National Accountability Bureau is sufficient ground to place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Does the right to travel abroad constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the federal government exercise its discretion under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 in a mechanical manner without recording independent reasons?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against placement on the Exit Control List despite the availability of a statutory review remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Faisal Rasheed vs The State and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 315, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 173, 2019 YLR 2379 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationdishonouring of chequemala fidetentative assessmentCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking the recall of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confirming pre-arrest bail to the respondent accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonouring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in confirming pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police, and by improperly conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence and incorporating case diary photographs into its order. The Lahore High Court held that the confirmation of pre-arrest bail was legally flawed due to the absence of findings regarding mala fide and the unwarranted deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granting order was recalled. The key principle laid down is that the grant of pre-arrest bail strictly requires establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police, and courts must confine themselves to a tentative assessment of evidence during bail hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed without establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence and include snaps of case diaries while deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Can an order granting pre-arrest bail under Section 489-F PPC be recalled under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. when the lower court fails to adhere to settled principles for granting extraordinary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Imtiaz Ahmad vs Javed Iqbal & 10 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 107, 2018 LHC 2553 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Imdad Sarwar vs Ex. Officio Justice of Peace etc2019 MLD 503, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 736, 2019 LHC 76 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Ayaz Anwar and others vs State Bank of Pakistan and others2019 CLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Ashiq Hussain and others vs Faysal Bank and others2019 PLJ Lahore 121, 2019 CLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waqas Developers through Proprietor vs Engr. LT. Col. (Retd.)2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 145, 2019 PLJ Lahore 652, 2020 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tanveer Spinning and Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs MCB Bank2019 CLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Siiamim and Company vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 12, 2019 PLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08
  Payment of Wages Act 1936pre-deposit requirementcondition precedentlimitationcondonation of delaylabour courtrevision petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision and appeal against an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Authority had directed the petitioner company to pay outstanding wages and compensation to the respondent employee. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Court, which was dismissed as time-barred and for failure to comply with the statutory deposit requirement. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, depositing the determined amount with the Authority and filing the corresponding certificate is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal. Non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent. Furthermore, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause or explain the daily delay in filing the appeal and revision, upholding the lower forums' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is depositing the determined wages with the Authority a mandatory condition precedent for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does an appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 lie without a certificate confirming deposit of the awarded amount?
  • Is an applicant required to explain each day's delay when seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaheen Enterprises through Partners and others vs Allied Bank2019 CLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Roshan Packages Limited Lahore through Chief Executive Officer2019 PTD 575 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs New Era Technologies (Private) Limited through. Chief Executive2019 CLC 1128 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lahore Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PCTLR 1079, 2019 PTD 1116 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iris Communications (Pvt.) Ltd vs Ahmad Khalid2019 MLD 772 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghani Glass Limited through Manager Legal, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Large Taxpayer Unit, Lahore and another2019 PTD 1559 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern Medical Technology Services vs Province of Punjab2019 PLD Lahore 395 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-29
  partnership dissolutiondeath of partnerpublic procurementpre-qualificationgrievance committeesubstantial complianceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the decision of the Grievance Committee which declared the petitioner firm, Messrs Eastern Medical Technology Services (EMTS), non-compliant and ineligible to participate in a public procurement bidding process on the ground that the two-member partnership stood dissolved upon the death of one of its founding partners. The core legal question revolves around whether the death of a partner in a two-member firm results in automatic dissolution despite an express saving clause in the partnership deed providing for the continuation of the business by the surviving partner, and whether the reconstituted firm was a valid legal entity at the time of submitting its pre-qualification proposal. The Lahore High Court held that dissolution upon the death of a partner is subject to the contract between the partners, and an intention to continue the partnership with legal heirs can be established through express terms or implied conduct. The Court ruled that the petitioner firm was a valid and existing partnership at all relevant times and not dissolved. The Grievance Committee's decision was set aside, and respondents were directed to proceed with the bidding process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a partner in a two-member partnership firm automatically dissolve the firm by operation of law despite a contrary provision in the partnership deed?
  • Can an agreement to continue a partnership after the death of a partner be implied from the conduct of the surviving partner and the legal heirs of the deceased partner?
  • Does a Grievance Committee have the authority to ignore certification and conclusive proof issued by the Registrar of Firms regarding the existence of a partnership?
  • Whether failure to immediately notify the Registrar of Firms regarding a change in the constitution of a partnership affects the legal existence of the partnership?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Divine Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Bank of Punjab2019 CLD 489 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bismillah Cotton Factory through Proprietor and others vs Bank2019 CLD 1010 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bhimra Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized representative2019 CLC 1247 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14
  gas meter configuration defectunder-billingOGRAconstitutional jurisdictionwrit of certiorariconsumer complaintnatural gas
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged orders passed by the designated officer and the full bench of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) regarding a demand notice issued to the petitioner consumer by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) for under-billing caused by a defective gas meter configuration. The core legal questions involved whether SNGPL could lawfully recover arrears for the disputed period under the contract terms and whether OGRA's decisions suffered from jurisdictional or legal flaws. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of OGRA validating the under-billing demand based on comparative consumption data and contract clauses 14 and 15 were unexceptionable. The Court laid down that under its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with technical factual determinations of administrative forums regarding meter readings and consumption data when no excess of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice is established, and that an unexecuted draft contract under a new gas policy cannot override the subsisting binding contract between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a gas utility company can raise a demand for under-billed gas consumption resulting from a defective meter configuration based on average monthly consumption under the governing contract?
  • Can unexecuted draft contracts introduced under a subsequent gas policy override the terms of a subsisting contract between a consumer and a gas utility company?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under a writ of certiorari when reviewing technical and factual determinations made by administrative regulatory bodies like OGRA?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bashir Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and another2019 PCTLR 861, 2019 PTD 980 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ah Textiles vs The Director, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation FBR and 4 others2019 PCTLR 714, 2019 PCTLR 888, 2019 PTD 1088 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. through Authorized2019 CLD 526 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mehr Muhammad Yousaf Gill vs Government of the Punjab, etc2020 [M] C L R 1183, 2019 MLD 1738, 2019 LHC 1428 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Hassan through Legal Heirs and others vs Punjab Co-Operative2019 YLR 1 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11
  condonation of delaylimitation perioddismissal in liminebanking courtrecovery of financestime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against a judgment and decree of the Banking Court. The appellant sought to excuse a 15-day delay beyond the statutory limitation period, citing the death of their engaged counsel as the primary reason. The Court examined the timeline, noting that the appeal was filed 104 days after the decree. After accounting for the time spent obtaining certified copies, the appeal remained time-barred by 15 days. The Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the deceased advocate had accepted the brief or that the delay was otherwise justified. Emphasizing that the law does not assist the indolent and that every day of delay must be explained, the Court ruled that the grounds presented were insufficient. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed in limine as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is the death of an advocate sufficient ground to condone a delay in filing an appeal if the engagement of the advocate is not proven?
  • Does the law require the explanation of each and every day of delay in filing an appeal?
  • Can the period of summer vacation be excluded from the limitation period if the appeal is filed after the court reopens?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1045 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynon-vital injuryforensic evidencecriminal liabilityheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Mehboob, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned a specific role of causing a single firearm injury to a non-vital part of the deceased's body, was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The holding was based on the fact that the medical evidence did not attribute the cause of death to the petitioner's injury, the forensic report indicated that the recovered crime empties did not match the petitioner's weapon, and the injured witness failed to nominate the petitioner during the initial investigation. The Court established the principle that mere involvement in a heinous offense does not preclude the grant of bail when the accused's specific role is distinguishable and requires further evidentiary inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the assignment of a single firearm injury to a non-vital body part justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the forensic report fails to link the recovered weapon to the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of an injured witness to nominate an accused during the initial investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is mere involvement in a heinous offense sufficient to deny bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Meera Shafi vs Office of the Governor Punjab & others2020 PLD Lahore 54, 2019 LHC 3402 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-11
  workplace harassmentemployee definitionindependent contractorOmbudsperson jurisdictioncontractual interpretationconstitutional petitionservice agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Governor of Punjab, which upheld the Ombudsperson's dismissal of a harassment complaint filed by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an artist engaged under a service agreement that explicitly disclaimed any employment relationship, qualified as an "employee" under the Punjab Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012, thereby granting the Ombudsperson jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner was not an "employee" as defined by the Act. It determined that the legislative intent of the Act is to protect employees—whether regular or contractual—within an organizational structure, not independent contractors or self-employed individuals. The Court emphasized that courts must interpret the law as written rather than expanding its scope to include persons outside the statutory definition. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Ombudsperson to entertain a complaint. The petition was dismissed, establishing that the Act does not cover independent service providers who lack the requisite administrative and supervisory relationship with an organization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'employee' under the Punjab Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012 include independent contractors or self-employed individuals?
  • Is the existence of an employer-employee relationship a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Ombudsperson to entertain a complaint under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  • Can a contractual clause explicitly disclaiming an employment relationship be ignored in determining the status of a complainant under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd through duly appointed Attorney vs Punjab Cooperative2019 YLR 805 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Muhammad Saeed2019 PLJ Lahore 487, 2019 CLD 63 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-20
  Banking Court jurisdictioninterim reliefleave to defendauto finance facilityrepossession of vehicleFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001interlocutory orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 challenges an order passed by a Banking Court allowing a customer's interim application for the release of a repossessed leased vehicle upon depositing defaulted instalments, prior to deciding the bank's application for leave to defend. The core legal question is whether a Banking Court has the jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order or grant interim relief in favor of a plaintiff customer before deciding the defendant bank's application for leave to defend under the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the Banking Court is vested with the power to grant interim relief and interlocutory orders under section 7 of the Ordinance read with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as such powers are neither prohibited nor regulated by the special law. The Court established that restrictions concerning leave to defend apply to defendants, not plaintiffs initiating suits, and a court empowered to grant final relief may competently issue interim orders to preserve property from deterioration pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Banking Court can pass an interlocutory order for the release of a repossessed vehicle before deciding the application for leave to defend filed by the defendant bank?
  • Does the restriction of obtaining leave to defend under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 apply to a plaintiff customer who files a suit against the bank?
  • Can a Banking Court invoke the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant interim injunctions when the special law does not explicitly prohibit or regulate such interim relief?
  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a discretionary interim order passed by a Banking Court that is based on sound judicial principles and aims to preserve property from deterioration?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Duly Authorized Attorney vs Eden Developers2019 CLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-26
  execution petitionpecuniary jurisdictionconsent decreeout-of-court paymentBanking CourtOrder XXI Rule 2 CPCfinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application by judgment debtors seeking the transfer of an execution petition from the High Court to a Banking Court, contending that the remaining outstanding claim amount fell below the High Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the pecuniary jurisdiction for executing a consent decree is determined by the original decretal amount or by the reduced balance following partial payments made out of court. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the forum for execution is fixed by the original decree amount and cannot fluctuate based on subsequent out-of-court payments. The Court laid down the principle that out-of-court payments must be certified under Order XXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and cannot be utilized to manipulate the jurisdictional forum. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original suit, and the court that passed the decree retains jurisdiction over its execution, irrespective of partial satisfaction of the debt, thereby preventing the unsavory effect of causing a fluctuation in the forum with each payment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pecuniary jurisdiction for executing a decree change based on partial payments made out of court?
  • Is an execution petition considered a continuation of the original suit for the purpose of determining jurisdiction?
  • Must out-of-court payments be certified under Order XXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be recognized by the executing court?
  • Does the original decretal amount determine the forum for execution, or does the outstanding balance at the time of filing the execution petition determine it?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1202 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26
  pre-arrest bailsupplementary statementfalse implicationcriminal procedurebail confirmationevidentiary doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Mazhar Iqbal, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 132/2018, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the subsequent evidentiary developments in the case. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted a hatchet blow to the complainant's head; however, the complainant later recorded a supplementary statement exonerating the petitioner and attributing the injury to a co-accused, Dilshad, who had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The Court held that, in light of the complainant's supplementary statement, the possibility of the petitioner's false implication could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, determining that remanding the petitioner to police custody would serve no useful purpose. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a complainant's subsequent statement creates significant doubt regarding the accused's involvement, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has exonerated the accused in a supplementary statement?
  • Does the granting of bail to a co-accused for the same offense influence the court's decision regarding the petitioner's bail?
  • Is it appropriate to confirm pre-arrest bail when the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan2019 PLJ Lahore 128, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 175 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15
  transfer and postingcivil servantwrit petitionmala fidedelegated powersadministrative exigencyvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected writ petitions filed by an Office Attendant challenging his transfer order within the same institute and another order regarding the taking over of store charge by a lab attendant, on grounds of alleged mala fide, victimization for approaching the court, and lack of jurisdiction. The core legal questions relate to whether an administrative transfer order passed under delegated powers without tangible proof of mala fide is amenable to writ jurisdiction, and whether a civil servant has a vested right to a specific posting. The Lahore High Court dismissed both petitions, holding that transfer and posting are exigencies of service, an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a place of choice, and routine administrative transfers passed under delegated powers without substance in allegations of mala fide do not warrant interference by courts under writ jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that courts should refrain from interfering in routine departmental transfers unless clear mala fide or lack of jurisdiction is established, and that the executive authority possesses the prerogative to utilize staff services based on administrative considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to remain posted at a place of his own choice?
  • Can a routine administrative transfer order passed by an authority under delegated powers be interfered with by the High Court under writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the transfer of a government employee considered a punishment or a violation of the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does an employee's plea of mala fide against a transfer order require tangible material to be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Mateen Hussain vs The State and another2019 LHC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-28
  post-arrest bailidentification paradeun-nominated accusedfurther inquirymurdercircumstantial evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the First Information Report, was connected to the alleged offence through identification parade, mobile data, and weapon recovery, warranting further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the identification parade of an un-nominated accused without prior description in the FIR has little evidentiary value, and the main accused attributed with the motive had been placed in column No. 2 by the investigating officer. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, ruling that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an identification parade of an un-nominated accused whose physical features were not detailed in the FIR does not constitute reasonable grounds for connection, and recovery alone cannot sustain a case in the absence of primary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the identification parade of an un-nominated accused without prior description in the FIR constitute reasonable grounds to connect him with the crime?
  • Can a weapon recovery serve as substantive evidence when no direct and substantial evidence is available against the accused?
  • Does the placement of the main accused in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bring an un-nominated co-accused's case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Masrafeen vs The State and others2019 YLR 1531 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtQatl-i-Amdrecovery proceedingsSection 103 CrPCcorroboration of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Masrafeen, for the murder of Rasheed Ahmad under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony regarding the appellant's presence in a vehicle and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on such evidence, particularly when the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court ruled that testimony disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot be relied upon against the appellant without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the alleged weapon illegal due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and noted that medical evidence is merely confirmatory, not substantive for identification. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence that has been disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict another accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify an accused in a case of unobserved occurrence?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the standard of scrutiny required for circumstantial evidence in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool, etc vs State etc.2020 KLR Criminal Cases 77, 2020 YLR 736, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1021 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-19
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationmedical contradictionmala fide intentrecovery of weaponcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners seeking protection in case FIR No. 472 of 2018 registered at Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari, under various sections including 302 and 149 PPC. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions between the medical evidence, witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the roles attributed to them, alongside pending previous litigation between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' involvement warranted pre-arrest bail as medical evidence did not support the specific roles attributed to certain petitioners, one injury was bailable, prior litigation suggested a possible malicious extension of the net of accused, and arrest was unnecessary solely for the purpose of recovery. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that pre-arrest bail may be granted where mala fide is apparent, medical evidence contradicts ocular accounts regarding specific accused roles, and custodial interrogation or arrest solely for recovery is unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the medical evidence contradicts the specific roles attributed to the accused in the FIR?
  • Is the arrest of an accused strictly necessary for the sole purpose of effecting the recovery of a weapon?
  • Does previous litigation between the parties support a finding of potential mala fide in the registration of a criminal case against extended family members?
  • Whether an offence falling under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 228 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-08
  pre-arrest bailforgerycriminal breach of trustbank fraudbail confirmationcomplainant's consent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, a bank official, in connection with FIR No. 18 dated 30.05.2016, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involve the encashment of cheques using forged signatures with the petitioner's alleged connivance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court observed that the incident occurred in 2013, yet the matter was reported significantly later, and the prosecution's narrative appeared prima facie unbelievable, as it was unlikely a bank official would risk their career for the small sums involved. Furthermore, the complainant appeared in person and expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, emphasizing the lack of credibility in the initial allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has no objection to the relief?
  • Does a significant delay in reporting an FIR affect the prima facie credibility of the prosecution's case in bail proceedings?
  • Is the improbability of a professional risking their career for a small sum a valid consideration for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and others vs Environment Protenction Agency and others2019 CLD 946 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through Legal Heirs, etc vs Muhammad2020 CLC 400, 2020 PLJ Lahore 172, 2019 LHC 4110 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. (Lahore) 377 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-20
  suspension of sentencependency of appealshort sentencebail pending appealDamanpunishment in advance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications for the suspension of sentences pending an appeal against conviction by the trial court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions relate to whether a short sentence of imprisonment and sentences involving financial penalties like Daman can be suspended, and bail granted, when the main appeal cannot be heard in the near future and the convicts were previously on bail without misuse during trial. The Lahore High Court held that keeping a convict behind bars for an indefinite period when the appeal is unlikely to be fixed early amounts to punishment in advance, warranting the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence is short and there is no prospect of an early hearing of the appeal, the sentence may be suspended to avoid pre-hearing incarceration, particularly if the accused did not abuse bail during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of imprisonment be suspended and bail granted when an appeal is unlikely to be fixed for hearing in the near future?
  • Does keeping a convict behind bars awaiting a delayed appeal amount to punishment in advance?
  • Should a sentence involving the payment of Daman be suspended on the same principles as a short sentence of imprisonment?
  • Does the fact that an accused remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession support the suspension of sentence on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansabdar vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1321 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11
  narcotics controlchain of custodysafe custody of sampleforensic science agency reportgovernment analyst reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 1020 grams of heroin. The core legal questions involve the integrity of the chain of custody of the recovered contraband and the legal validity of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency's analytical report under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained gaps in the transmission and custody of the sample parcel, coupled with a forensic report that failed to provide test results and protocols as mandated by law, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the prosecution must prove safe custody beyond reasonable doubt and that a Government Analyst report lacking mandatory testing details cannot safely be relied upon for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay or gap in the chain of safe custody of a narcotic sample between the police station and the forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a report of the Government Analyst legally valid if it fails to provide the results of the tests carried out and the test protocols applied pursuant to Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Can an accused be convicted of a narcotics offence solely on the basis of oral testimonies of police witnesses when the forensic report and chain of custody are found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamdan Bibi vs Arif Hussain Shah2019 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
• Mall Road Traders Association vs The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore2019 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-20
  continuing mandamusurban rehabilitationtraffic safetyencroachment removaljudicial oversightmunicipal regulatione-challan system
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the judicial oversight of urban rehabilitation efforts in Lahore, specifically the transformation of Mall Road into a 'Model Road.' The core legal questions involved the authority of the court to direct administrative bodies to remove encroachments, enforce building maintenance, regulate signage, and mandate traffic safety measures, including the use of helmets and e-challan systems. The court held that under the principle of continuing mandamus, it possesses the jurisdiction to monitor and direct executive authorities—including the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and the Punjab Safe Cities Authority—to ensure compliance with public interest directives regarding urban aesthetics, safety, and traffic management. The ratio establishes that courts may actively supervise administrative implementation of civic duties where public welfare is at stake. Key principles laid down include the legitimacy of judicial intervention to compel executive action for the preservation of protected heritage buildings, the enforcement of traffic regulations to reduce public injury, and the authority to mandate the regularization of unauthorized building plans to ensure compliance with municipal standards.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court invoke the principle of continuing mandamus to monitor the implementation of urban rehabilitation projects?
  • Does the court have the authority to direct executive agencies to enforce traffic safety measures such as mandatory helmet usage?
  • Can the court order the de-sealing of commercial premises contingent upon compliance with municipal building regulations?
  • Is the court empowered to direct the implementation of electronic traffic enforcement systems like e-challans?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Waseem Khokhar vs Taimur Kamal etc2020 CLC 315, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 360, 2019 LHC 3769 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Shakir Bashir Awan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 508 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18
  pre-arrest bailrapeFIRmala fidecontradictory allegationscriminal investigationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations, specifically the claim that the offence occurred on the same day at two geographically distant locations (Lahore and Jouharabad). The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the complainant's contradictory versions regarding the place of occurrence, coupled with an unexplained delay of over one month in reporting the incident, created serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess the material to determine if the prosecution's case is tainted by mala fide or ulterior motives, particularly when the complainant's own narrative is inherently contradictory and physically impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two FIRs alleging the same offence at different locations on the same day create sufficient doubt to grant pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an unexplained delay in reporting an offence a relevant factor for the court when considering a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the complainant's narrative is physically impossible due to geographical distance?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nadeem vs LESCO and others2020 YLR 611, 2019 LHC 4089 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Mustafa vs Province of Punjab through Secretary2019 YLR 1696, 2019 LHC 1083 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Bashir Lakhesar, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab vs Government of Punjab etc2020 [M] C L R 735, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 266, 2019 PLD Lahore 1, 2018 LHC 2523 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12
  doctrine of pleasureassistant advocate-generalremoval from servicevested rightaudi alteram partemno work no payconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Assistant Advocate-General challenging the order dispensing with his services and seeking release of his salary following long absence due to medical issues. The core legal questions involved whether the post of Assistant Advocate-General is a pleasure post terminable without notice, whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies, and whether the principle of 'no work no pay' is attracted upon prolonged absence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the post of Assistant Advocate-General is held during the pleasure of the government in the public interest, and an incumbent has no vested right to continue against the government's wishes. The Court ruled that continuous absence without proper sanction amounts to gross misconduct, that removal without stigma on the basis of displeasure does not attract the strict right to a notice or hearing, and that the principle of 'no work no pay' disentitles the petitioner to salaries for the period of absence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the post of an Assistant Advocate-General is a pleasure post held during the pleasure of the government?
  • Does an Assistant Advocate-General possess a vested right to continue in office so as to require a formal show-cause notice before removal?
  • Does long and continuous absence from duty by a law officer constitute gross misconduct warranting dispensation of services?
  • Is a public officer who remained absent from duty entitled to salary under the principle of 'no work no pay'?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Iqbal Hassan vs Defence Housing Authority through Secretary2019 [M] C.L.R. 685, 2019 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-25
  intra court appealsection 12(2) cpcwrit petitionlimitationmaintainabilityappellate jurisdictionlaw reforms ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which had sought to set aside a judgment passed in a writ petition. The core legal questions addressed were whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against an order dismissing a Section 12(2) C.P.C. application arising from a writ petition, and whether the appellant satisfied the requirements of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that no substantive right of appeal is provided under the law against the dismissal of a Section 12(2) C.P.C. application stemming from constitutional jurisdiction, as Intra Court Appeals under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 are confined to orders passed under Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and original civil jurisdiction was not exercised. Furthermore, the court held that under Article 175(2) of the Constitution, no court can exercise jurisdiction unless conferred by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the appellant also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arising from a writ petition?
  • Does an order passed in a writ petition and subsequently challenged via Section 12(2) C.P.C. constitute an order passed in original civil jurisdiction?
  • Is a right of appeal a substantive right that must be expressly provided by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Maleeha Syed vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council etc2021 [M] C L R 721, 2019 LHC 3314 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali Khan vs State and 14 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 184 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-22
  joint trialcriminal revisionmisjoinder of accusedCode of Criminal Procedureseparate trialsame kind of offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, which directed the joint trial of three separate FIRs (No. 340/2011, No. 6/2012, and No. 53/2012). The petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 340/2011 but not in the other two cases, argued that a joint trial involving him in cases where he is not an accused is legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a joint trial is permissible under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when the accused persons in the respective cases are different. The Court held that the impugned order was a patent illegality and violated the statutory requirements for joint trials. The Court established that for a joint trial to be valid under Section 234, the accused in all cases must be the same, the offences must be of the same kind, and the number of cases must not exceed three. Finding these conditions unsatisfied, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed separate trials.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for conducting a joint trial under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a joint trial permissible when the accused persons in the respective FIRs are different?
  • Can a court order a joint trial for cases where the accused is not named in all the FIRs?
  Read full judgment →