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 Ajmal and others vs The State and another2017 MLD 266 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-15
  criminal appealdacoity with murderprivate complaint versus FIRmaterial improvementsbenefit of doubtocular testimonycontradictory statementsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, alongside a murder reference and a revision petition for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question revolves around whether a conviction for dacoity with murder can be sustained when the complainant significantly changes the narrative and attributes the fatal shot to a different accused in a subsequent private complaint compared to the initial police FIR, and introduces material improvements. The Lahore High Court held that substantial improvements, contradictions between the FIR and the private complaint, and the shifting of roles regarding the fatal shot cast serious doubt on the veracity of the ocular testimony. Reversing the trial court's judgment, the court laid down the principle that a criminal conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt, and any reasonable doubt arising from material discrepancies must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular testimony that contradicts the initial FIR through material improvements in a subsequent private complaint?
  • Does a shifting of roles by the complainant regarding who fired the fatal shot create a reasonable doubt warranting the accused's acquittal?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17
  murderconvictionlife imprisonmentabscondanceocular accountmedical evidencecriminal revisionsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while a connected criminal revision sought enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular account, prompt FIR, medical evidence, and the prolonged abscondance of the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony was natural, consistent, and fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the appellant's status as a proclaimed offender, while no mitigating circumstances warranted capital punishment or interference with the life sentence. The court laid down the principle that prompt lodging of an FIR, consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and long-term unexplained abscondance of an accused serve as strong corroborative pieces of evidence establishing guilt beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged abscondance of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence along with substantive prosecution evidence?
  • Does minor discrepancy in medical evidence outweigh consistent and natural ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  • Whether a prompt FIR in a daylight occurrence ruling out deliberation and consultation establishes the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Under what circumstances can a sentence of imprisonment for life be enhanced to death upon a revision petition by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Samdani vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2017 PLC (C.S.) 1137, 2017 LHC 2708 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  recruitment processproject directorenvironmental protection agencymala fidecivil servant conductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the recruitment process for the post of Project Director for the Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab, alleging lack of transparency, mala fide, and tailoring of criteria to accommodate a specific respondent. The core legal questions revolved around whether the recruitment process was vitiated by bias or mala fide, whether the appointment was legally sustainable, and whether the project itself lacked utility. The court held that the petitioner lacked the requisite qualifications for the post, that allegations of mala fide and bias were not substantiated by the record, that pendency of an inquiry before the National Accountability Bureau did not constitute a disqualification, and that the project validly incorporated the upgradation of the Central Laboratory as previously ordered by the court. The petition was consequently dismissed with a direction to the Chairman TEVTA to inquire into the petitioner's alleged violation of government servant conduct rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pendency of an inquiry before the National Accountability Bureau constitutes a disqualification for public appointment?
  • Whether the recruitment process for the post of Project Director was tainted with mala fide or designed to accommodate a specific candidate?
  • Whether a government servant can engage in private business or employment while in service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Samdani vs Government of Punjab and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  public appointmentproject directorenvironmental protection agencymala fidependency of inquirycivil servant conductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recruitment process and appointment of the Project Director for an environmental development project, alleging lack of transparency, mala fide intentions, and tailoring of eligibility criteria to accommodate a specific candidate. The core legal questions involved whether the selection process was tainted by bias and whether the appointed candidate was legally disqualified due to past judicial removal and pending inquiries. The Lahore High Court held that the selection process was transparent, the candidate met the requisite qualifications, past removal from a different post based on service rules had no bearing on the current appointment, and the pendency of a National Accountability Bureau inquiry did not constitute a legal disqualification. The court laid down the principle that mere allegations of mala fide and pending inquiries, absent actual statutory disqualification, do not vitiate a transparent recruitment process, and directed an inquiry into the petitioner's own conduct for violating government servant conduct rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of an inquiry before the National Accountability Bureau operate as a disqualification for public appointment?
  • Whether the previous removal of a candidate from a different post based on specific service rules disqualifies them from being appointed to a new project post?
  • Can a recruitment process be declared illegal on generalized allegations of mala fide without substantiating record?
  • Is a government servant barred from engaging in private business or trade under the civil servant conduct rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State2017 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  summary convictionintentional insultprocedural irregularitycontempt of courtpolice negligenceSection 228 PPCSection 480 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a police official, challenged his summary conviction under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly interrupting judicial proceedings and showing intentional insult to the court. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under Section 480, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the evidence supported the finding of intentional obstruction. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste and failed to adhere to the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 480, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The record revealed no evidence of intentional defiance or obstruction by the appellant; rather, the trial court appeared to be venting general frustration with police performance. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes the principle that summary powers to punish for contempt or obstruction under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, must be exercised with strict procedural compliance, ensuring the accused is afforded a fair opportunity to explain their conduct, and cannot be invoked based on pre-determined bias or generalized grievances against an institution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to summarily convict an individual for intentional insult under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without strictly following the procedure outlined in Section 480, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court convict a public official for obstructing judicial proceedings based on general dissatisfaction with the performance of their department?
  • Is a show-cause notice issued under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, valid if the court demonstrates pre-determination and bias against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Sultan and others2017 YLR 2514 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailmurdertwo versionsmisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No.1 by the trial court in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether exceptional grounds exist to recall the concession of bail already granted. The Lahore High Court held that since the role assigned to the accused was not established during investigation, the case involved two conflicting versions to be determined at trial, and there was no allegation of misuse of bail, no case for bail cancellation was made out. The key principle laid down is that the grounds for the grant of bail and its cancellation are entirely different, and cancellation requires very strong, exceptional, and cogent reasons such as the misuse of the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Does a case of two versions emerging from the investigation warrant the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the absence of an allegation regarding the misuse of bail a ground to dismiss a petition for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Faiz Armed etc2017 PLJ Lahore 740 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Afzal etc (2) Muhammad Akram (3) Bashir Ahmad Khan vs2017 LHC 2742 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs The State etc2017 LHC 4385 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-21
  pre-arrest bailfictitious sale deedrevenue circlesprivate persons in revenue officescorruption in revenue departmentnon-appearance of petitioneraid of Supreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by Muhammad Adnan in connection with a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a fictitious sale deed involving land. The core legal matter concerns the alleged fraudulent execution of a sale deed facilitated through revenue office malpractice, specifically the involvement of privately engaged persons working with revenue officials, which contravenes previous directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition due to the petitioner's non-appearance and deliberate attempt to withdraw and frustrate the court process. The court highlighted the constitutional duty under Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to act in aid of the Supreme Court and underscored the necessity of eradicating corruption and the illegal employment of private personnel in revenue circles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-arrest bail petition can be dismissed solely on the ground of the petitioner's non-appearance and attempt to withdraw the application?
  • What is the legal obligation of judicial and executive authorities under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding orders passed by the Supreme Court?
  • Can the services of privately engaged persons be legally utilized by public servants within the revenue hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ABBs Bukhari, etc. vs Appellate Auti Iority/District Council2017 PLJ Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State and another2017 LHC 3506 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-27
  murderbenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidencechance witnesseschild witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the reliability of chance witnesses, the consistency between medical and testimonial evidence, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the evaluation of the defence version including the testimony of a child witness under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the mysterious delay in reporting the crime, unnatural conduct and doubtful presence of the eyewitnesses, material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and a plausible defence supported by the record creating distinct dents in the prosecution's narrative. The key principles laid down include that the tender age of a witness alone is no ground to discredit their testimony if they are mature enough to understand questions and give rational answers, and that a suspicious delay in setting the law in motion combined with major discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does tender age of a witness automatically render them incompetent to testify under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an unexplained and mysterious delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of death warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is the presence of chance witnesses who fail to justify their presence at the crime scene sufficient to reject the prosecution's eye-witness account?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 others2017 CLC 1533 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas and others vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailidentification paradeappellate stagepresumption of innocencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences awarded to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, following their conviction for offences under Sections 302, 396, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences pending appeal, given that the FIR was registered against unknown persons, no specific role was attributed to them in the identification parade, and no looted property was recovered. Relying on the Supreme Court's dictum in Soho Khan v. The State, the Court held that while deeper appreciation of evidence is generally impermissible at the bail stage, the Court may slightly touch upon the merits of the case to assess the sustainability of the conviction. Finding that the petitioners were not hardened criminals and noting the delay in the hearing of the main appeal, the Court suspended the sentences and granted bail, establishing that the presumption of innocence persists in the appellate stage and that procedural technicalities should not thwart justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial presumption of innocence in favour of an accused disappear entirely after conviction?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to touch upon the merits of a case when deciding on a petition for suspension of sentence?
  • Can a court suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• (1)Muhammad Abbas (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Muhammad Abbas2017 LHC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-14
  Qatl-e-Amddeath sentence confirmationocular evidenceprolicidecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the double homicide of his son and another individual, Tawasin, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence and motive, and whether the death penalty was warranted. The Court held that the prosecution's case, anchored on consistent ocular testimony, was credible and that the appellant's defense of false implication was implausible. The Court found no mitigating circumstances to justify a lesser sentence, noting the unprovoked nature of the killings and the appellant's role in the prolicide. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and confirmed the death sentence, ruling that the prosecution had proved the case to the hilt. The judgment reaffirms that where ocular evidence is consistent and credible, the absence of forensic evidence like empty casings does not undermine the prosecution's case, and that heinous, unprovoked crimes warrant the ultimate penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of empty casings at a crime scene necessarily undermine a prosecution case based on consistent ocular testimony?
  • Is a plea of false implication credible when the accused fails to provide a logical motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate him in a double homicide?
  • Can a death sentence be confirmed in a case of prolicide where no mitigating circumstances are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamm Ad Ayub vs Judge Banking Court Gujranwala and others2017 CLD 246 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Younas and another vs Ghazanfar Abbas and 12 others2017 YLR 2229 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-02
  gift deedfraud and misrepresentationinheritance rightscertified copiespublic documentsthirty-year-old documentco-ownershiplimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a property dispute wherein the plaintiffs, legal heirs of the deceased sister Sardaran Bibi, challenged a gift deed and subsequent mutations executed in favor of their uncles, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and impersonation to deprive their mother of her paternal inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court accepted the plaintiffs' appeal and decreed the suit. Upon further revision, the Lahore High Court examined whether the defendants had validly proved the execution of the gift deed and the death date of the predecessor-in-interest. The High Court held that a registered document or an unproved public document, when its execution and genuineness are challenged, loses its presumption of correctness and requires independent, quality evidence of the transaction and proper certification under the law of evidence. The Court ruled that fraud vitiates solemn proceedings, that a 30-year-old document raises only a rebuttable presumption as to execution rather than the truth of its contents, and that co-owners cannot be ousted by time or limitation in matters of fraudulent inheritance mutations. The revision was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a registered gift deed lose its sanctity and require independent proof of execution and the underlying transaction when its validity is denied?
  • Can an uncertified death certificate lacking proper endorsement and comparison with original records be admitted in evidence without examining the issuing official?
  • Does the statutory presumption attached to a thirty-year-old document under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 extend to presuming the truth of its contents?
  • Does the doctrine of limitation bar a co-owner's suit for inheritance when the revenue entries are based on a fraudulent transaction constituting a recurring cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhaivimad Shakeel vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 677 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtattempt to commit robberyidentification paradeacquittalreasonable doubtsupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his acquittal on charges of murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given that he was not named in the initial FIR, no identification parade was conducted, and no incriminating evidence was recovered. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with deficiencies, noting the appellant's late implication via a supplementary statement, the absence of a test identification parade, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Court reaffirmed the axiomatic principle that in criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of any reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. A single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal, consistent with established precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding their involvement?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a supplementary statement where the accused was not initially nominated in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Hassan Rana etc vs Federal Government etc2017 PLC (C.S.) 1342, 2017 LHC 319 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08
  service lawspromotion policywrit of quo warrantonon-statutory rulesdegree verificationHigher Education CommissionFederal Investigation Agencyquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a constitutional petition challenging the promotion policy and promotion orders of certain Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) employees, alongside connected petitions seeking to quash Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) proceedings initiated against those employees regarding the validity of their MBA degrees. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition by corporate employees governed by non-statutory rules, the legality of promotional incentives based on specific professional qualifications, and the competence of criminal investigating authorities to inquire into educational degrees already verified by the Higher Education Commission. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable as PIA service terms are governed by non-statutory rules, the petitioners filed out of personal vengeance rather than public interest under the guise of a quo warranto, and the administrative promotion policy introduced a valid reasonable classification. Furthermore, the court held that criminal proceedings by the FIA constituted an abuse of process where the academic degrees had already been authenticated by the Higher Education Commission. The petitions challenging the promotions were dismissed, while the connected petitions were allowed and the FIA proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by employees of a corporation governed by non-statutory rules is maintainable to challenge internal promotion policies?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be maintained by a petitioner whose personal interest and vengeance are involved?
  • Whether criminal proceedings before the Federal Investigation Agency can continue regarding the validity of educational degrees that have already been verified by the Higher Education Commission?
  • Does an employer have the prerogative to introduce a separate promotion channel and incentives for employees holding specific professional qualifications without violating the principle of non-discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Hassan Rana and 3 others vs The Federal Government2017 PLC (C.S.) 1342 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08
  constitutional petitionservice mattersnon-statutory rulesdegree verificationFIA inquirypromotion policyquo warranto
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses a constitutional petition challenging the promotion policy and promotion orders of certain employees (respondents) of the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), alongside connected petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated before the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) regarding the validity of the respondents' MBA degrees. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ petition regarding non-statutory service rules of a corporation, the validity of degrees obtained from Al-Khair University campuses before April 30, 2009, and the competence of FIA to inquire into verified academic credentials during pending constitutional proceedings. The court held that constitutional petitions by PIA employees regarding non-statutory service terms are not maintainable, that degrees issued by Al-Khair University prior to April 30, 2009, and verified by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) are valid, and that continuation of FIA proceedings on the same subject amounts to double jeopardy and abuse of process. The main petition was dismissed, while the connected petitions challenging the FIA proceedings were allowed and the inquiries quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation challenging their terms and conditions of service governed by non-statutory rules is maintainable?
  • Are degrees issued by Al-Khair University on the basis of studies undertaken prior to April 30, 2009, valid and protected by Higher Education Commission verifications?
  • Can the Federal Investigation Agency proceed with an inquiry into the genuineness of academic degrees that have already been verified multiple times by the Higher Education Commission and are subject to pending adjudication before the High Court?
  • Whether promotion against a particular post can be claimed as a matter of right by employees who do not possess the required professional qualifications under a specific fast-track placement policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar alias Yasri vs The State & another2017 LHC 2180 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23
  criminal appealcompromiseleave of the courtmurderrapesentence enhancementjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a criminal appeal filed by Mudassar alias Yasri against his conviction and death sentences on three counts of murder, along with convictions for rape and house trespass. During the pendency of the appeal, the surviving legal heirs of the victims entered into a compromise and sought the petitioner's acquittal and sentence reduction. The core legal question was whether the appellate court is bound to approve a compromise between the legal heirs in a heinous crime and whether leave for composition should be granted mechanically. The Lahore High Court held that the acceptance of a compromise in murder cases requires judicial approval and leave of the court, which cannot be granted perfunctorily or as a matter of routine. The court emphasized that the administration of justice is a State responsibility, and the court, acting as the conscience of society, can refuse a compromise in gruesome crimes or where it is inexpedient. The key principle laid down is that judicial leave for composition under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is mandatory and subject to judicial discretion based on the facts, brutality of the crime, and societal impact.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court legally bound to approve a compromise reached between the legal heirs of a victim in a murder case?
  • Whether the leave of the court for composition under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 can be granted mechanically as a matter of course?
  • Can a court refuse to grant permission for a compromise in gruesome and brutal offenses despite the consent of the legal heirs?
  • Does a convict have a right to claim a reduction in sentence for non-compoundable offenses merely on the ground of a compromise with the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Nadeem vs Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue & 3 others2017 LHC 3443 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Majeed vs Province of Punjab and 3 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 940 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07
  Intra-Court Appealcontract employeemaster and servanttermination simpliciterreinstatementvested rightconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal was filed against a Single Judge's order which disposed of the appellant's constitutional petition by declaring his termination on the basis of show-cause allegations illegal, while treating it as a termination simpliciter. The appellant, a contract employee, sought reinstatement and challenged the termination as being against natural justice and discriminatory. The core legal question was whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to seek reinstatement or extension of service through a constitutional petition. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that contract employees are governed by the doctrine of master and servant and cannot seek specific enforcement of a service contract. The Court affirmed that since the appellant's contract period had already expired, he had no vested right to claim extension or reinstatement. The ratio decidendi establishes that in cases of arbitrary termination of contract employment, the remedy lies in suing for damages rather than seeking reinstatement via constitutional jurisdiction, as such petitions are not maintainable for enforcing contract terms.

  Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Iftikhar vs Government of Punjab and others2017 LHC 926 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali vs The State and another2017 MLD 889 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtocular testimonyinterested witnessesindependent corroborationacquittalhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises out of concurrent findings of conviction under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was convicted for causing injuries and sentenced to imprisonment along with payment of Arsh. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable ocular testimony, given material contradictions among witnesses, lack of specific attribution in early statements, and absence of independent corroboration in a background of previous litigation. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt due to glaring discrepancies in the testimony of interested witnesses regarding the date and details of the occurrence, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include that the presence of injuries on a complainant only proves presence at the scene and not veracity, that a single material infirmity can impeach a witness's credibility, and that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured complainant alone guarantees the truthfulness of a criminal charge without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material aspects such as the date and details of the occurrence?
  • Does a single material infirmity affecting the credibility of a witness render their entire statement doubtful?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when co-accused facing the same set of evidence have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs State2017 MLD 382, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 57 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-05
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentencemitigation of sentenceocular accountforensic evidencecriminal appealcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant, Muhammad Irfan, for the murder of Abdul Haq and causing firearm injuries to Master Abdul Qadoos. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge of Qatl-i-Amd beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account and corroborating evidence. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony, prompt registration of the FIR, medical evidence confirming the cause of death and injuries, and forensic reports linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene. However, noting that the motive for the crime remained unestablished and shrouded in mystery, the court determined that a case for mitigation existed. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a proven motive can serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing for capital offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Can the absence of a proven motive serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and forensic matching of crime empties sufficiently corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Is a prompt FIR registration a relevant factor in excluding the possibility of false implication of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran Mai through Special Attorney and anothers vs Allah Wasaya2017 PLD Lahore 144 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Uzma Bibi vs Additional District Judge, etc.2017 LHC 505 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Uzma Bibi vs Additional District Judge, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 819 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleem Fatima and others vs Bank of Punjab and others2017 CLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06
  leave to defendbanking suitcertified copy of bank accountselectronic transactionsmark-upfinancial recoverybankers books evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the judgment debtors under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, which partially decreed the recovery suit filed by the respondent-Bank. The core legal questions involved whether the application for leave to defend was rightly dismissed for non-compliance with statutory requirements, whether the statement of accounts was duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and whether electronically generated bank statements are admissible in evidence under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002. The Lahore High Court held that the application for leave to defend lacked the necessary specificity and supporting documents, justifying its dismissal. The Court further held that the certificates provided at the foot of the bank statements complied with the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and that, in any event, electronically generated statements are admissible without traditional signatures pursuant to the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002. Finally, the Court noted that mark-up beyond the expiry period had already been correctly excluded by the Banking Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for leave to defend in a banking suit is rightly dismissed when it fails to specify disputed amounts and lacks supporting financial documents?
  • Are certificates provided at the foot of statements of accounts sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891?
  • Do electronically generated bank statements require traditional signatures or formal attestation to be admissible in evidence under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002?
  • Whether a financial institution can recover mark-up beyond the expiry period stipulated in the finance agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Bano vs Additional District and Sessions Judge/Appellate2017 YLR 2135 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumaira Ishaq vs Addl. District Judge, District Sahiwal and others2017 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Akhtar through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Rafique Thakayda2017 MLD 1161 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shama vs The State and 3 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 386, 2017 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-15
  exhumationdisintermentsuspicious deathlocus standicause of deathforensic analysisinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby a Magisterial order declining the exhumation of a deceased child's dead body was set aside. The petitioner, the mother of the deceased, argued that the paternal uncle lacked locus standi, that no First Information Report was registered, and that significant time had elapsed since the burial. The Lahore High Court held that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not impose any restriction of locus standi, nor does it require the prior registration of an FIR or positive proof before ordering an exhumation to determine the cause of a suspicious death. The Court further held that the passage of time does not automatically preclude forensic analysis, as certain biological evidence and toxicological traces can remain detectable even after decomposition. The petition was dismissed, upholding the order for exhumation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a paternal uncle or any third party lack locus standi to request the exhumation of a dead body under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the registration of a First Information Report a mandatory prerequisite for a Magistrate to order the exhumation of a corpse?
  • Does the lapse of a significant period of time between burial and the request for exhumation legally bar a Magistrate from ordering a forensic examination?
  • Can an appellate court interfere in its inherent jurisdiction with an order directing the disinterment of a dead body for investigating an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shama vs State & 3 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 386 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-15
  exhumationdisintermentlocus standisuspicious deathcriminal investigationcode of criminal procedureinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside a Magisterial order that had declined the exhumation of the dead body of a minor girl. The core legal question concerned whether a paternal uncle lacks locus standi to seek exhumation compared to the parents, and whether prior registration of a First Information Report or positive proof is a prerequisite for ordering disinterment. The Lahore High Court held that no statutory clog of locus standi exists under the relevant law, that registration of a First Information Report is not a sine qua non for probing a suspicious death, and that the Additional Sessions Judge rightly ordered the exhumation. The key principles laid down are that any person can set the law into motion for exhumation to determine the cause of a suspicious death, the State's duty to investigate overrides familial objections, and potential decomposition over time does not automatically bar forensic analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Does a paternal uncle have the locus standi to file an application for the exhumation of a deceased child under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the prior registration of a First Information Report a sine qua non for a Magistrate to order the exhumation of a dead body?
  • Does the lapse of time and potential decomposition of a corpse legally bar a magistrate from ordering its exhumation for forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bang vs Chairman WAPDA and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 643 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-02
  family pensionpensionary benefitsabatement of inquirywithholding of pensionconstitutional petitionWAPDAservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the widow of a deceased WAPDA employee seeking a direction to the respondents to release the remaining 20% of her family pension and other pensionary benefits, which had been withheld on account of pending audit paragraphs and inquiries against her late husband. The core legal question was whether a department can lawfully withhold a portion of family pension due to inquiries or audit paragraphs pending against an employee who passes away during service, particularly after those cases have been closed. The Lahore High Court held that upon the death of an employee during service, all pending disciplinary proceedings and inquiries abate, and an employee or their family cannot be penalized for uncompleted inquiries. The court ruled that withholding the remaining family pension without legal justification or applicable rules is illegal. The principle laid down is that pensionary benefits are a vested right rather than a bounty, and pending departmental proceedings automatically abate upon the death or retirement of an employee, precluding the department from withholding legitimate dues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the department can legally withhold a portion of family pension due to pending audit paragraphs after the closure of cases against a deceased employee?
  • Do pending departmental inquiries automatically abate upon the death of a government or statutory employee during service?
  • Is pension considered a bounty or a vested right acquired after satisfactory service?
  • Can a department penalize an employee or their dependents for an inquiry that was not completed before the employee's death or retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Parveen vs The Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social2017 PLC (C.S.) 607 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24
  constitutional petitionservice matterspecialized qualificationselection boardvested rightapprobate and reprobateappointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a petitioner seeking to restrain respondents from appointing another candidate as a Physiotherapist, to be appointed herself based on her experience, and to cancel the advertisement containing specific qualifications. The core legal question was whether an employee can challenge an advertisement after participating in the recruitment process and whether prescribing specific qualifications and preferences for a specialized post is permissible. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employer or government is fully empowered to prescribe qualifications and preferences for a vacant post based on exigencies, and a candidate who has applied and participated in the process cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the same advertisement. The key principle laid down is that the prescription of qualifications for a post is within the employer's domain, and a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging an advertisement after applying for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate challenge the validity of a job advertisement after applying for the post and participating in the selection process?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim appointment or promotion to a post for which they lack the required specialized qualification?
  • Is the government or employer empowered to stipulate specific qualifications and preferences for a vacant post keeping in view organizational exigencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Gull vs Muhammad Khalid and 2 others2017 PLJ Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others vs Mst. Allah Rakhi through L.Rs, and others2017 MLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 190 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  post-arrest baildacoityevidentiary valueco-accused statementpreferential treatment of womencriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Sajida Bibi, who was accused of facilitating a dacoity at a bank under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner provided logistical support to the perpetrators, based on witness statements regarding suspicious visitors at her residence and a supplementary statement leading to a recovery of money and a cell phone. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence against her and her status as a woman. The Court held that the prosecution's case relied on inadmissible evidence, specifically the statement of a co-accused while in custody, and that the witness statements were insufficient to establish her active privity to the crime at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that a woman with no prior criminal record is preferentially entitled to the concession of bail when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary proof to establish active involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statement of a co-accused while in police custody admissible evidence against another accused for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the lack of a prior criminal record entitle a female accused to preferential consideration for bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case against the accused relies on evidence that requires full trial scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others2017 YLR 118 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf and others vs Additional District Judge and others2017 PLJ Lahore 613, 2017 YLR 1814 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf and another vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and 22017 PLJ Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabira Bibi and others vs Hikmat Khan and others2017 YLR 102 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabiha Khanam vs Muhammad Ahed Khan Cheema, DG, LDA and others2017 YLR 1748 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27
  contempt of courthousing schemeplot allotmentLDAanticorruptionrecord computerizationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a contempt petition and a writ petition filed against the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and its officials for failing to comply with a court order regarding the allotment of an exempted plot to the petitioner in lieu of her acquired land. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents willfully flouted judicial directions and engaged in foul play by attempting to auction plots meant for the petitioner and repeatedly retracting allotment offers. The Lahore High Court held that although the respondents committed contempt through high-handedness and malicious conduct, the contempt proceedings would not be pursued further as the petitioner's grievance was ultimately redressed during the proceedings through the allotment of the rightful plot. The Court laid down principles emphasizing the urgent need for restructuring LDA, computerizing records, implementing GPS mapping, archiving property records with a third party to prevent fraud, taking strict deterrent action against corrupt officials, and ensuring accountability of the Director General.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be dropped when the respondent authority ultimately complies with the court's directions and redresses the petitioner's grievance?
  • Can a citizen seek damages against state authorities for mental torture and pecuniary loss caused by prolonged and unnecessary litigation resulting from malicious conduct?
  • What structural and preventive measures must the Lahore Development Authority undertake to secure property records and eliminate corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. S. Yasmin vs Pakistan Railways through General Manager and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23
  disciplinary proceedingsabatement of proceedingsdeath of employeeposthumous penaltyretrospective dismissalservice benefitspensionary benefitscoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assailed an order dated 30.05.2014 passed by respondent No. 2, which denied service benefits to the widow of a deceased railway employee. The petitioner's husband was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and passed away on 20.08.2002. Subsequently, on 21.08.2002, the respondents issued an order imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, making it effective retrospectively from 06.08.2002. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of an employee prior to their culmination, or whether a penalty can be imposed posthumously. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay all service benefits to the petitioner. The court held that disciplinary proceedings automatically abate upon the death of an employee, divesting the department of jurisdiction to impose any departmental penalty posthumously or retrospectively against a deceased person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate automatically upon his death?
  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed posthumously or retrospectively after an employee's death?
  • Whether the department retains jurisdiction to pass a disciplinary penalty against a deceased employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqiya Bibi, etc. vs Allah Ditta, etc2017 LHC 4490 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Sajjad vs Syed Muhammad Areeb2017 CLC 450 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, etc. vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc.2017 LHC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, etc vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc2017 C.L.R. 860 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, etc. vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 510 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtindependent corroborationnon-examination of witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, for the possession of narcotics. The appellant was originally charged with possessing 1500 morphine tablets and 5 kilograms of hemp. The trial court convicted the appellant, but the High Court noted that the trial court had already discarded the prosecution's evidence regarding the morphine tablets. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the charge of possession of contraband, particularly in the absence of independent corroboration and the failure to examine key witnesses. The High Court held that once the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was discarded regarding the morphine, it could not be relied upon for the remaining charge without independent corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, the court highlighted the failure to examine the lady constables involved in the arrest as a significant lapse. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered her immediate release, emphasizing that the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses created a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon for a partial conviction if that same testimony has been discarded by the trial court regarding other aspects of the case without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to examine material witnesses, such as the arresting lady constables, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce all witnesses to establish a charge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan through2017 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  Special Family Pensionwrit jurisdictionservice matterdiscriminationpensionary benefitsjudicial reviewmartyred personnelArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, mother of a deceased Pakistan Army soldier, challenged the refusal of the Federation of Pakistan to grant her 100% 'Special Family Pension' benefits. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to hear the matter given the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the denial of full pension benefits was discriminatory and contrary to the applicable Pension Regulations. The Court held that the jurisdictional bar under Article 199(3) is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review where an order is alleged to be mala fide or discriminatory. It further held that the refusal of full pension benefits was legally unjustified, as the rules cited by the respondent were inapplicable to 'Special Family Pension' benefits. The Court established that administrative authorities cannot discriminate against similarly placed beneficiaries and must interpret pension regulations to ensure the dignified livelihood of the families of martyred personnel, declaring the impugned order without lawful authority and directing the grant of full pension benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prevent the High Court from reviewing service matters involving allegations of mala fides?
  • Is Rule 111 of the Pension Regulations Vol-1 2010 applicable to 'Special Family Pension' benefits?
  • Does the failure to exhaust the remedy before the Pension Appeal Committee bar a writ petition when the specific grievance does not fall within the Committee's limited jurisdiction?
  • Can the state discriminate against the mother of a martyred soldier regarding the entitlement to full 'Special Family Pension' benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukayya Parveen and another vs Province of Punjab through D.O.2017 MLD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-30
  temporary injunctionoral giftstate landcolonization of government landsmutation of inheritanceprima facie casecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed. The petitioners claimed ownership of state land through an oral gift made by their predecessor-in-interest in favour of their brothers, who were subsequently murdered, and challenged a mutation of inheritance. The Lahore High Court held that since the suit land vests in the Government, no valid gift could be made without the prior approval of the District Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour, and the revenue record showed the respondents to be in possession. The High Court affirmed that all three mandatory ingredients for a temporary injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—must coexist, and dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a valid gift of state-owned leasehold land can be made without the sanction of the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
  • What are the essential ingredients that a plaintiff must prove for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted when the revenue record shows possession of the suit land to be with the opposing party?
  • Whether concurrent orders of lower courts refusing a temporary injunction warrant interference in civil revision when no jurisdictional error is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Kausar vs Asj etc2017 PLD Lahore 604, 2017 LHC 351 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18
  DNA testpaternity disputeinheritanceconsentpersonal libertyconstitutional petitioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court's dismissal of an application for a DNA test in an inheritance suit. The core legal question was whether a person's paternity in a civil inheritance matter can be determined through a compulsory DNA test without their consent. The Lahore High Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered in a routine manner in civil inheritance cases, and a person cannot be compelled to undergo a medical or DNA test against their consent, as doing so violates fundamental rights to personal liberty. The Court laid down that resort to DNA testing is permissible only in rare and exceptional circumstances, requires the free consent of the party concerned, and cannot be forced, especially when independent oral and documentary evidence is available to resolve the controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether paternity of a person in a civil case pertaining to inheritance can be determined by conducting a DNA test?
  • Can a person be compelled to undergo a DNA test against their wish without their consent?
  • Is it permissible to resort to DNA testing in civil matters of inheritance as a matter of routine?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Kausar vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2017 PLD Lahore 604 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18
  DNA testpaternity determinationcivil inheritance suitpersonal libertyconsent for medical examinationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court decision and granting an application for a DNA test to determine the paternity of the petitioner in a civil suit for inheritance and cancellation of mutations. The core legal question was whether a person's paternity in a civil inheritance dispute can be determined through a compulsory DNA test against their consent, and whether such tests should be ordered routinely. The Lahore High Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine in civil inheritance matters, and no person can be compelled to undergo a DNA test or provide blood samples without their free consent, as doing so violates fundamental rights to personal liberty. The court emphasized that resort to DNA testing is limited to rare and exceptional circumstances, and paternity can be established through regular oral and documentary evidence. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order directing the DNA test was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court compel a party in a civil inheritance dispute to undergo a DNA test against their consent?
  • Is a DNA test permissible as a matter of routine practice in civil cases to determine paternity?
  • Does forcing a person to submit to a blood test for DNA profiling violate their right to personal liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Bibi etc. vs Ali Muhammad etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheedan Bibi, etc vs Abdul Razzaq2017 PLJ Lahore 994 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raeesa Begum vs Khaleeq-Ur-Rehman, Etc2017 PLJ Lahore 422, 2017 LHC 300 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raeesa Begum vs Khaleeq-Ur-Man. etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 422 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Tabasum vs Taj Haider and others2017 LHC 2858 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naik Parveen vs Jewan KhanK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 299, 2017 LHC 3120 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nabeera Shafique (Minor) through her next friend vs Additional2017 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mithan vs Jatoi and 7 others2017 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  Family Court jurisdictionNikah Namarecovery of dowerretrospective effectprocedural lawconstitutional petitionSchedule of Family Courts Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court judgment that had set aside a Family Court decree in a suit for recovery of dower. The petitioner sought to enforce a promise of agricultural land made in her Nikah Nama. The core legal questions were whether the Family Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising from entries in the Nikah Nama, and whether the amendment to the Schedule of the Family Courts Act, 1964, specifically Entry No. 10, had retrospective effect. The High Court held that the Family Court indeed possessed the requisite jurisdiction to decide such matters. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the amendment to the Schedule, being a procedural change regarding the forum for trial, operates retrospectively. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, restored the original Family Court decree in favor of the petitioner, and affirmed that matters arising out of a Nikah Nama fall within the purview of the Family Court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising out of entries in a Nikah Nama?
  • Does the amendment adding Entry No. 10 to the Schedule of the Family Courts Act, 1964, have retrospective effect?
  • Is a change of forum for the trial of a case considered a procedural change?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehtab Bibi vs Khadim Hussain through L.Rs, and another2017 YLR 1020 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lala Rukh Bukhari vs Syed Waqar ul Hassan Shah Bokhari, etc.2017 LHC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Bibi vs Mst. Ayesha Bibi and 6 others2017 CLC 1601 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kamalan Bibi and others vs Rab Nawaz and others2017 YLR 844 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela Begum vs Qadeer Ahmad2017 LHC 138 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum and another vs Government of Punjab and othersK.L.R. 2017 Labour & Service Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servantterms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionservice tribunalwrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants (teachers) challenging their transfer and surrender orders issued by departmental authorities. The core legal question is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the transfer and posting of civil servants, or whether such matters are exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal under the constitutional framework. The Court held that the petitions are not maintainable. The ratio is that matters relating to the transfer, posting, and placement of civil servants fall squarely within the definition of 'terms and conditions of service.' Consequently, Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 creates an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such matters, regardless of allegations of mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental rights. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal is the exclusive forum for adjudicating grievances arising from terms and conditions of service, and constitutional petitions cannot be used to bypass this statutory remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall within the ambit of 'terms and conditions of service' under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an order of transfer on the grounds of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction in the High Court, or must they approach the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when an initial illegal order by a subordinate authority is followed by a final order from a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum & another vs Government of Punjab & others2017 LHC 455 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servanttransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212writ petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a consolidated set of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants (teachers) challenging orders of transfer, surrender, and relieving from their respective educational institutions. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate upon the transfer and posting of civil servants, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petitions are not maintainable, ruling that the transfer and posting of civil servants are integral components of the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, creates an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The Court further established that allegations of mala fide or claims that an order is without jurisdiction do not bypass this constitutional ouster, as the Service Tribunal is the appropriate forum to resolve both factual and legal controversies regarding service matters. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Are transfer and posting orders of civil servants considered part of the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does an allegation of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction confer upon the High Court the power to entertain a petition otherwise barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interim departmental order regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Fatima through Special Attorney vs Khalid Naeem and 2 others2017 YLR 2368 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat-Ur-Rehman through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Anwaar Saeed2017 YLR 2406 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humera Rasheed vs Executive District Officer (Health) and 82017 PLC (C.S.) 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17
  Intra Court Appealpublic appointmentvested rightmerit listrecruitment committeeconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition filed against the refusal to issue an appointment letter for the post of Midwife. The core legal questions involve whether appointment is a vested right, whether courts can interfere with the selection process of a recruitment committee without proof of mala fides, and whether an interim observation can override a final judgment. The Lahore High Court held that public employment is not a vested right, the competent authority and recruitment committee are the best judges of recruitment, courts will not substitute their opinion absent mala fides or political influence supported by evidence, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that appointment without following the prescribed statutory procedure is impermissible and courts will not accommodate candidates outside the merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public employment or appointment to a post constitutes a vested right of a candidate?
  • Can a court substitute its opinion for the selection made by a competent recruitment committee in the absence of mala fides?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding political influence in appointments can be inquired into in constitutional petition proceedings?
  • Can a candidate be appointed against a vacant post without adopting the prescribed procedure under the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan and others2017 PLJ Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs A.D.J. Gujar Khan and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 7, 2017 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-30
  custody of minorhizanatwelfare of minorremarriage of motherconstitutional jurisdictionguardians and wards
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner-mother's defense and granting the custody of her minor daughter to the respondent-father based primarily on the mother's second marriage. The core legal question addressed is whether a mother's remarriage to a person not within the prohibited degree operates as an absolute bar to retaining the custody of her minor child, or whether the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare overrides it. The Lahore High Court held that while the mother generally loses her preferential right of hizanat upon contracting a second marriage with a stranger, this rule is not absolute; the welfare of the minor remains the ultimate and overriding consideration. The Court established that remarriage alone cannot be the sole deciding factor, and custody cannot be handed over to a third party or paternal grandmother in derogation of the mother when the father resides abroad and the minor's welfare clearly lies with the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the remarriage of a mother to a person not within the prohibited degree is an absolute bar to her right of hizanat?
  • Can the custody of a minor be handed over to the paternal grandmother in the presence of the real mother?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts in minor custody matters can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount and overriding consideration in determining custody disputes regardless of technical disqualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif2017 YLR 399 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzaran Bibi alias Shama vs The State2017 YLR 705 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessioninterested witnesschance witnessdelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her husband, while a revision petition sought the enhancement of her sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on interested, related, and chance witnesses, a delayed FIR, and inconclusive medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the delayed post-mortem examination suggested the fabrication of evidence and that the ocular account provided by the complainant and witnesses was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence of extra-judicial confession to be weak and the alleged recoveries to be disconnected from the crime. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace, and the prosecution must present solid evidence to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed post-mortem examination suggest the fabrication of prosecution evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the testimony of interested, related, and chance witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession considered a strong or weak type of evidence in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Muhammad Khan through L.Rs, and 4 others2017 YLR 23 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fiza Naeem Bukhari And others vs Province of Punjab And others2017 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Falak Naz vs Tariq Mehmood Khan, Lac.2017 KLR Revenue Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04
  contempt of courtland acquisitioncompensationawardreferee courtnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the Land Acquisition Collector for alleged non-compliance with a previous High Court order regarding compensation for acquired land. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to pay a specific sum of Rs. 33,58,460/-, which she claimed was the amount directed by the Court. The core legal question was whether the amount mentioned in a writ petition, subsequently incorporated into a court order, constitutes a binding adjudicated determination of compensation that the respondent is compelled to pay, or merely a claim. The Court held that the amount mentioned in the order was not an adjudicated figure but a mere assertion by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition, ruling that the respondent is only bound to pay the compensation determined in the official Award. The key principle laid down is that a court order directing payment of compensation in accordance with the law does not validate a specific claim amount mentioned in a petition unless that amount has been formally adjudicated upon by the Court. Parties dissatisfied with an Award must seek redress before the appropriate Referee Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amount mentioned in a writ petition, when incorporated into a court order, constitute a binding adjudicated determination of compensation?
  • Is a Land Acquisition Collector bound to pay a specific amount claimed by a petitioner if that amount has not been formally adjudicated by the Court?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation amount mentioned in an official Award?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Elahi through. Legal heirs vs Imam Bakhsh and others2017 LHC 407 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Elahi through Legal Heirs vs Imam Bakhsh and others2017 C.L.R. 241 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum through L.Rs, and 5 others vs Mst. Nazakat Bibi and others2017 YLR 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Begum through L.R. vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another2017 CLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Bashir vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 330 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-15
  pre-arrest bailabductionzina bil jabrfurther inquirytentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from Mst. Anwar Bashir seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Kabirwala, District Khanewal, on allegations of abduction and facilitation of zina bil jabr. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in reporting, her status as a woman, the lack of overt acts assigned other than facilitation, and the finding of innocence of co-accused during investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under the facts and circumstances, noting that malice or ulterior motives could not be ruled out and that no recovery was to be made from the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that while deciding pre-arrest bail, the court must examine the accusation, the investigation report, touch prima facie upon the merits, and give proper attention to the defence plea taken by the accused alongside the prosecution material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused is a woman assigned only a role of facilitation and no recovery is to be made from her?
  • Can the court consider the finding of innocence of co-accused by the police investigation agency at the bail stage?
  • Whether the defence plea of the accused must be given proper attention alongside prosecution evidence when deciding a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mst. Amiran etc (2) The State vs (1) The State etc (2) Muhammad Munir2017 P Cr. L J 1591, 2017 LHC 1778 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  murder referencedeath sentence confirmationocular accountabsconding convictcriminal appealbenefit of doubtmotiveprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against conviction and a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in reporting the crime, the failure to prove the alleged motive, and the unreliable ocular testimony of witnesses who remained silent during the initial police investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the motive was unsubstantiated and the eye-witnesses' presence and testimony were highly dubious, particularly given their silence when the police first visited the crime scene. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants and the absconding convict. The judgment lays down the principle that once the prosecution sets up a motive, it must be proved; failure to do so undermines the case. Furthermore, it affirms that the High Court possesses the authority to decide a murder reference under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even in the absence of an absconding convict, ensuring justice is administered on the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court decide a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive result in the failure of the entire prosecution case?
  • Is the ocular testimony of witnesses reliable if they remained silent during the initial police investigation of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amiran and others---Appellants vs The State and others---2017 P Cr. L J 1591 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  murder referenceabsconding convictocular evidenceprivate complaintinordinate delaymotiveacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a trial court judgment convicting the appellants and a co-convict for murder. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular evidence provided by witnesses who remained silent for 25 days despite being present at the crime scene during initial police investigations, and whether a murder reference could be decided for an absconding convict. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the unexplained inordinate delay in filing the private complaint and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court emphasized that when the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it must be established; failure to do so weakens the case. Furthermore, the court held that under Sections 374 and 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a High Court has the authority to decide a murder reference and acquit an absconding convict based on the merits of the case, without requiring their personal presence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted all accused, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court decide a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive weaken the overall case against the accused?
  • Is the ocular testimony of witnesses reliable if they remained silent during the initial police investigation despite being present at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amena Gulnaz alias Amena vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1417 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-26
  murderstatement of accusedSection 342 Cr.P.C.appreciation of evidenceacquittalburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying solely on her statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where she admitted to shooting the deceased after he allegedly raped her at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted based solely on an inculpatory statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the prosecution's evidence has been rejected in its entirety. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the trial court had already disbelieved the prosecution's ocular account, motive, and recovery evidence. Applying the principle that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the accused must be acquitted regardless of their plea, the Court set aside the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be accepted or rejected in its entirety; it cannot be used to convict an accused if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of their statement recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the prosecution's evidence is rejected in its entirety?
  • Does a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, have to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Forensic Science Laboratory report when crime empties are sent with significant delay after the arrest of the accused?
  • Must an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove its case, even if the accused has admitted to the killing in their statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aila Nawaz vs Judge Family Court etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 907 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afzala Virk vs Mian Fazal Haq2017 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afshan Bibi vs Judge Family Court/Guardian Judge Kabirwala2017 PLJ Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aajzan Bibi vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1483 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-06
  benefit of doubtmurderdelayed FIRocular accountmotivemedical evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Mst. Aajzan Bibi, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her two minor grandsons and sentencing her to death on two counts, alongside compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve determining whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through credible ocular testimony, a proven motive, and a prompt first information report. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case, noting a significant and unexplained delay in reporting the incident, dubious presence of the alleged eyewitnesses, an unproven and illogical motive, and contradictions in the evidence. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside her conviction and death sentence, and acquitted her of the charges. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story?
  • Whether the prosecution is relieved of proving its case when the accused fails to appear as a witness in her defense?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • Whether medical evidence can point an accusing finger at a culprit in an unwitnessed murder case without independent corroboration of ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tasleem Tahir vs Punjab Health Care Commission through Secretary and another2017 PLJ Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ishrat Malik through Special Attorney vs Jamil Ahmad Manj and another2017 YLR 1788 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Shahzad and another vs The Secretary, Food Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 730 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-22
  civil service appointmentcontract appointment policyregularization of servicestatutory interpretationexecutive policyright to equalityPunjab Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the challenge by successful candidates for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) against their appointment on a contract basis by the Punjab Food Department, despite being recommended for regular appointment by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal question is whether the government can unilaterally convert posts intended for regular recruitment into contract appointments through an executive policy, notwithstanding the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court held that the impugned action was illegal, ruling that an executive policy cannot override the statutory framework governing civil servant appointments. The Court emphasized that the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, provide a comprehensive mechanism for recruitment that does not authorize contract-based appointments for these posts. Furthermore, the Court found the respondents' actions discriminatory, violating Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as other similarly situated candidates were appointed on a regular basis. Consequently, the Court directed the issuance of revised orders appointing the petitioners on a regular basis with consequential benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy override the statutory provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the government have the authority to convert posts advertised for regular recruitment into contract appointments without amending the governing law?
  • Is the appointment of candidates on a contract basis, while others similarly situated are appointed on a regular basis, a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Zaheer and anothe vs Ghaffar Ahmed and another2021 [M] C L R 301, 2017 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shafiq ur Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2017 LHC 870 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Rafique, etc vs Mohammad Mansha, etc2017 [RI] C.L.R. 1154 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Mohsin vs Federal Government and 3 others2017 YLR 1229 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hussain vs Allah Ditta2017 YLR 1249 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-20
  civil revisionoral sale mutationburden of prooffraudulent transactionmisreading of evidencedeclaratory suitrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged concurrent judgments dismissing a declaratory suit concerning an alleged fraudulent oral sale mutation. The petitioner asserted that the subject land was intended for mortgage, not sale, and that the respondent fraudulently obtained a sale mutation. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the beneficiary of the disputed mutation, successfully proved the sale transaction and payment of consideration after the petitioner denied the transaction. The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof, noting that the respondent did not appear in court, failed to produce the revenue officer who attested the mutation, and relied on contradictory witness testimony. The Court ruled that mutation entries are summary proceedings and do not confer title; thus, when an executant denies the transaction, the beneficiary must independently prove the sale and payment of consideration. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it may interfere with concurrent findings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where lower courts have misread or ignored material evidence, rendering the findings perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records confer title to property?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the beneficiary of an oral sale mutation?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the admission of a thumb impression on a document automatically prove its contents when fraud is alleged?
  Read full judgment →