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. 79,400 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Mst. Mehran Bibi and 5 otherss vs Mst. Shakeela Fatima alias Rani and 62006 YLR 2275 · Lahore High Court · 2003-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehmood Bibi vs Siraj Din2006 CLC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mashan through Legal Heirss vs Fakhar Imam through Bibi2006 YLR 2596 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majeedan Bibi vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and 2 otherss2006 YLR 2705 · Lahore High Court · 2004-02-18
  civil revisionremand orderframing of issuesgift deedadditional issuesOrder XIV CPCremand for fresh trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision assails the judgment and order of the appellate court whereby an order of remand was passed in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction based on an alleged gift deed. The trial court had dismissed the suit regarding the gift, while preserving the plaintiff's Islamic inheritance share. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the trial court's judgment, framed three additional issues concerning the validity of the gift deed, non-joinder of parties, and court-fee valuation, and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The High Court observed that the existing issues, particularly whether the plaintiff was the owner in possession, sufficiently encompassed the whole controversy. Furthermore, both parties were fully aware of the points in dispute and had produced all their evidence, including scribe and marginal witnesses. Relying on binding precedent, the court held that non-framing or framing of issues becomes immaterial when parties proceed to trial fully aware of the issues. The revision was accepted, the remand order set aside, and the appeal remanded to the appellate court for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court justified in remanding a suit for fresh trial to frame additional issues when existing issues already cover the controversy?
  • Does the non-framing of a specific issue invalidate a trial when parties were fully aware of the controversy and led complete evidence?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case without demonstrating that additional evidence is necessary for a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madiha Sultana and otherss vs Muhammad Sharif and otherss2006 YLR 2763 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Latifan Bibi vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 251 · Lahore High Court · 2005-09-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlsuckling babyfemale accusedquantity not mentioned
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Mst. Latifan Bibi in respect of a criminal case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 at Police Station City, Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering her gender, the presence of a suckling baby in jail with her, and the failure of the record to disclose the exact quantity of the recovered narcotic. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, primarily due to having a suckling child lodged with her in jail and the fact that the exact quantity of the recovered narcotics is not ascertainable from the record. The key principle laid down is that the incarceration of a female accused with a suckling infant, coupled with evidentiary ambiguity regarding the exact quantity of the seized substance, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused having a suckling baby lodged with her in jail is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure to mention the exact quantity of narcotics recovered in the FIR justify the grant of bail?
  • Is bail to be granted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when evidentiary ambiguity exists regarding the seized quantity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Latifa Bibi And 8 Others vs Muhammad Bashir And 10 Other2006 CLC 1076 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-19
  inheritance mutationShia school of thoughtburden of proofrelevant facts under Qanun-e-Shahadathearsay exceptiondeclaration by deceased personwill and affidavit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal, decided by the Lahore High Court upon remand from the Supreme Court, addressed whether specific documents (Exhibits D.1, D.2, and D.3) were duly proved and whether statements contained therein, along with a revenue statement by the deceased's widow, sufficiently established that the deceased Imam Bakhsh belonged to the Shia school of thought under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The dispute arose between collaterals claiming under Sunni law and appellants claiming under Shia law following the inheritance mutation of the deceased, who died issueless. The High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence, noting that Pakistan has a presumptive majority of Sunni Muslims, casting the burden of proof on those asserting a different sect, but held that a person's faith is primarily determined by their own professions, conduct, and life choices rather than post-mortem funeral rites. The Court concluded that the execution of the will (Exhibit D.1) and affidavit (Exhibit D.2) made anti litem motam, coupled with the widow's revenue statement (Exhibit D.3), were duly proved and admissible under items 5 and 6 of Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the lower appellate court's decree was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether documents such as a will and an affidavit executed by a deceased person are duly proved when supported by marginal witnesses and a notary public?
  • Can statements made by a deceased person regarding his religious faith and succession in pre-litigation documents be admitted under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the performance of funeral prayers (Janaza) according to a particular sect's rites is a conclusive determining factor of a deceased person's faith during their lifetime?
  • How is the initial presumption regarding the religious faith of a Muslim citizen in Pakistan applied in inheritance disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kubra Bibi vs The State2006 YLR 2677 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-28
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailabetmentre-appraisal of evidencecriminal appealaged convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence filed by Mst. Kubra Bibi, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Arshad under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an aged woman convicted of abetment, was entitled to the suspension of her sentence and release on bail pending the outcome of her appeal. The Court observed that the prosecution's case against the petitioner rested on the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have overheard her abetting the crime days before the occurrence, yet only reported this after the discovery of the body. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's involvement was based on a supplementary statement recorded after the initial investigation. Given the petitioner's advanced age and the necessity for a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence regarding her specific role, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, suspending the sentence and granting bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can the sentence of a convict be suspended pending appeal if the prosecution evidence requires re-appraisal?
  • Does the advanced age of a female convict constitute a valid ground for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Is a conviction based on a supplementary statement involving abetment sufficient to deny the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshidan Bibi vs Additional District Judge and otherss2006 YLR 641 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi And Others vs Ramzan And Other2006 CLC 1023 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-03
  civil revisioninheritancegift mutationfemale heirsburden of prooflimitationco-heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a family dispute over inheritance and subsequent gift mutations of agricultural land left by the deceased last male owner, Ali Ahmad. The petitioners, his daughters, challenged the validity of gift mutations through which the disputed land was first transferred to their mother and subsequently to their brother, completely excluding the daughters from their share of inheritance. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the gift mutations carried a presumption of genuineness. The Lahore High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the beneficiary of a gift transaction, particularly one resulting in the complete exclusion of female heirs, must prove its validity and the circumstances surrounding it, and that co-heirs are not barred by limitation in such matters. The revision was allowed and the suit was decreed in favor of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutation of a gift incorporated into the revenue record carries an absolute presumption of genuineness that relieves the beneficiary from proving the transaction?
  • Does limitation run against co-heirs in a suit challenging fraudulent inheritance or gift mutations?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement when female heirs are completely excluded from their inheritance through subsequent gifts to family members?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum through Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Sadiq2006 PLD Lahore 589 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum (Deceased) Rep. By Her Legal Heirs KhanK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 389 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Khatoon vs Mst. Fatima and others2006 MLD 920 · Lahore High Court · 2004-10-05
  inheritancelife estatepre-deceased sonMuslim Family Laws Ordinancesuccessionco-sharerlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged concurrent judgments dismissing the petitioner's suit for inheritance. The core legal question was whether the daughter of a pre-deceased son could inherit from the estate of the last male holder upon the termination of a life estate, given that the deaths occurred prior to the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962. The Court held that upon the termination of a life estate, the succession to the estate of the last full owner is governed by Muslim Personal Law, which incorporates the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Consequently, the petitioner, as the daughter of a pre-deceased son, was entitled to inherit the share her father would have received had he been alive at the time succession opened. The Court further established that the law of limitation does not apply to claims by co-sharers and that the conversion of occupancy tenancy into full ownership did not affect the devolution of property. The suit was decreed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the daughter of a pre-deceased son inherit from the estate of the last male holder upon the termination of a life estate?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to a claim for inheritance filed by a co-sharer?
  • Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply to the devolution of property upon the termination of a life estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Jabeen vs Additional District Judge And Another2006 CLC 1185 · Lahore High Court · 2005-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Jabeen vs Additional District Judge & another2008 PLJ Lahore 1085 · Lahore High Court · 2005-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Bibi vs The State2006 YLR 3070 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-02
  murdercapital punishmentchance witnessbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death for the murder of the complainant's father. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence provided by related and chance witnesses, the presence of material contradictions in the prosecution's case, the credibility of motive, and the reliability of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, that the evidence was fraught with major contradictions, exaggerations, and improvements, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of any doubt created by inconsistent and unreliable prosecution evidence must be extended to the accused, and convictions cannot be sustained on shaky or concocted testimony. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and death sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who are closely related to the deceased can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to the accused when the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and dishonest improvements?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained in the absence of a plausible motive and reliable corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kanwal Iram vs Dr. Habibullah2006 PLJ Lahore 769 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-21
  ejectmentpersonal requirementvacant shoplandlord and tenantcantonment rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent from a building in Multan Cantonment on the grounds of personal requirement and impairment of utility. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the landlady failed to disclose or justify the non-utilization of another shop that fell vacant during the proceedings. In appeal, the Lahore High Court examined the record and noted that the landlady remained silent in her examination-in-chief regarding the vacant shop and subsequently rented it out without establishing its unsuitability for her needs. The core legal question addressed was whether a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of personal need is required to explain the availability and non-suitability of a shop that becomes vacant during the pendency of the petition. The Court held that while a landlord generally has the prerogative to choose premises for personal use, in the case of a vacant shop, the landlord is legally required to state and prove that the vacant shop is not suitable for their requirement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment for personal requirement must explain the availability of another shop that falls vacant during the pendency of the petition?
  • Does a landlord have an absolute prerogative to select premises for personal use when another suitable shop is vacant?
  • What is the effect of a landlady's failure to state in evidence why a vacant shop in her possession was not suitable for her requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kanwal Iram vs Dr. Habib Ullah2006 YLR 1421 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-21
  ejectmentbona fide requirementcantonments rent restrictionlandlord and tenantvacant shop
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent from a building located in Multan Cantonment on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement and impairment in value and utility. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, observing that the appellant failed to mention a vacant shop in her petition or justify its non-suitability. In the First Appeal from Order before the Lahore High Court, the core legal question was whether a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of personal need is required to account for or prove the unsuitability of another vacant shop in her possession during the proceedings. The High Court held that while a landlord generally has the prerogative to choose premises for occupation, in the case of a vacant shop, the landlord is required by law to state and prove that the vacant shop is not suitable for her requirement. The appeal was dismissed in limine as the necessary evidence regarding the unsuitability of the vacant shop was absent, affirming the principle that a landlord must establish the statutory ingredients of bona fide requirement when a vacant property is available.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement is obligated to account for a vacant shop in her possession?
  • Does a landlord have the absolute prerogative to select a premises for occupation when another suitable shop is vacant?
  • What are the evidentiary requirements for establishing bona fide personal need under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneezan vs Muhammad Ramzan2006 YLR 1501 · Lahore High Court · 2004-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Bibi vs Mukhtar Ahmed2006 YLR 929 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another vs S.H.O. Police Station Jampur through D.P.O., Rajanpur and 3 otherss2006 P Cr. L J 1790 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-05
  quashment of FIRalternative remedydelay in FIRabuse of process of lawzina ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. sought the quashment of F.I.R. No. 36 of 2005 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when a challan has already been submitted and an alternate remedy is available before the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that quashment of proceedings at an early stage is not permissible or preferred when investigation is complete and a challan has been submitted, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashment should not be used to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure or when alternate remedies under sections 249-A or 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available. The key principles laid down are that delay in lodging F.I.R. in cases involving family honour is of no consequence, and criminal cases should generally be allowed to proceed on their merits before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. when a challan has already been submitted before the trial court?
  • Is delay in the registration of an FIR fatal in cases involving family honour?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere to quash an FIR when an alternate remedy under sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kafia Bibi and 6 others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Lahore and another2006 MLD 1393 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs Shabir Ahmad and 2 others2006 PLJ Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs Shabir Ahmad And 2 Other2006 CLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi through representatives and otherss vs Mst. Nemat Bibi2006 YLR 2681 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-25
  giftdelivery of possessiongift mutationhusband and wifeinheritancecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit concerning the inheritance of the deceased Naimat Ali and a registered gift deed executed by him in favour of his wife, Mst. Jamila Bibi, and his nephew. The core legal questions involved the validity of the gift, specifically whether physical delivery of possession was necessary when the donee is the wife of the donor, and whether the absence of a gift mutation in the revenue record invalidates the transaction. The Lahore High Court held that physical delivery of possession is not necessary for a gift made by a husband in favour of his wife, and that a mutation is merely a record of a transaction and its absence does not render the gift deed invalid. The revision petition was partially allowed, setting aside the appellate court's decree regarding the gift in favour of the widow and affirming it in other respects, establishing the legal principles concerning gifts between spouses and the evidentiary value of revenue mutations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether physical delivery of possession is necessary for a valid gift made by a husband in favour of his wife?
  • Does the absence of a gift mutation in the revenue record render a registered gift deed invalid?
  • Is a mutation considered an independent conveyance or merely a record of a transaction concluded earlier?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameel Fatima and another vs S.H.O., P.S. Gulgasht, Multan and 52006 PLJ Lahore 1008 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Jameel Fatima and another vs S.H.O. P.S. Gulghast, Multan and 52006 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ishrat Begum and 2 others vs Executive District Officer2006 PLC (C.S.) 301 · Lahore High Court · 2005-06-16
  withholding of salaryreinstatement in serviceforced labourpayment of wagescivil servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by three female teachers who were reinstated in service after being removed or dismissed, but whose monthly salaries were subsequently withheld by the education authorities. The petitioners argued that they had been performing their duties since their respective reinstatements and that withholding their salaries was illegal, contrary to Islamic principles, and amounted to forced labour. The respondents admitted that the petitioners were actively performing their duties but had not been paid. The Lahore High Court held that withholding the salaries of employees who are actively performing their duties is unlawful and cannot be justified on the ground that their reinstatement orders were allegedly illegal. The Court further observed that forcing employees to work without pay violates Islamic tenets regarding the prompt payment of wages and constitutes forced labour. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and directed the respondent authority to immediately release the petitioners' outstanding salaries from the dates of their reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can the salaries of reinstated employees be withheld on the ground that their reinstatement orders were illegal while they are actively performing their duties?
  • Does forcing an employee to perform duties without paying their monthly salary amount to prohibited forced labour under the Constitution?
  • Are reinstated civil servants entitled to the release of their salaries from the date of their reinstatement if they have been performing their duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs S.H.O., P.S. R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi and otherss2006 YLR 2946 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi and another vs The State2006 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 2006-03-02
  criminal appealconvictionfacilitationSection 342 Cr.P.C.burden of proofacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, who were found guilty of facilitating the murder of the deceased. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused, who were alleged to be the actual perpetrators, due to lack of evidence, but convicted the appellants based primarily on their own statements recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of an admission in a Section 342 statement when the underlying prosecution evidence against the primary perpetrators has been rejected. The Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt independently, and it cannot rely on the accused's statements to fill gaps in its evidence. Since the prosecution evidence against the alleged killers was disbelieved, the conviction of the appellants as facilitators could not be sustained. The principle laid down is that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and an admission under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used to convict an accused if the prosecution's case has otherwise failed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of an admission made during an examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does the failure of the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses constitute an admission of guilt?
  • Can a court accept a part of an accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while rejecting the rest to secure a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi and another vs StatePLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 759 · Lahore High Court · 2006-03-02
  criminal appealmurder convictionfacilitationSection 342 Cr.P.C.burden of proofappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, the wife and son of the deceased, who were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302(b) and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for facilitating the murder of the deceased and causing evidence of the offense to disappear, primarily based on admissions made during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question is whether an accused can be convicted solely on statements made under Section 342 Cr.P.C. when the substantive prosecution evidence against the main co-accused has been disbelieved and rejected by the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the primary prosecution evidence against the co-accused is disbelieved, an alleged admission by facilitators during their Section 342 examination cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of statements or admissions made during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of an accused to cross-examine certain prosecution witnesses amount to an admission of guilt?
  • Can a conviction of facilitators be sustained when the main co-accused allegedly committing the primary offense have been acquitted due to disbelieved prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum vs State Life Insurance Co. through Chairman and anothers2006 YLR 1186 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-15
  insurance claim repudiationnatural justiceunreasoned orderright of hearingstatutory limitationconstitutional petitionadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the repudiation of a life insurance death claim by the State Life Insurance Corporation. The core legal question is whether an insurance company can repudiate a policy after the two-year statutory period has elapsed, and whether the repudiation order itself was legally sustainable. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because it was a sketchy, unreasoned, cyclostyled document that failed to comply with the statutory requirement to provide reasons for administrative decisions. Furthermore, the Court held that the order violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized that under the relevant insurance laws, an insurer's right to dispute a policy based on suppression of facts is limited to two years from the policy's commencement. Consequently, the Court declared the repudiation order void and directed the respondent to decide the claim afresh after providing the petitioner a fair hearing and issuing a reasoned order, in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

  Questions settled

  • Is an insurance company legally permitted to repudiate a life insurance policy on the ground of concealment of facts after the expiry of two years from the date of the policy's commencement?
  • Does an administrative or quasi-judicial order issued without providing reasons violate the requirements of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is an order passed by an insurance company repudiating a claim without affording the claimant an opportunity of hearing sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irfana Faiz and anothers vs The State and 2 otherss2006 P Cr. L J 199 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-06
  quashment of FIRZina Hudood Ordinancevalidity of marriageIddat periodprohibited degreeconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefclean hands
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking the quashment of a First Information Report registered under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, on the ground that the petitioners were sui juris and had married of their own free will. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition for quashment of an F.I.R. should be entertained and relief granted where a marriage is contracted within the prohibited degree or prior to the expiry of the Iddat period following an unnotified divorce from the petitioner's sister. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that constitutional remedies are discretionary and equitable, and will not be extended to protect an unholy or immoral alliance or where parties approach the court with unclean hands. The key principle laid down is that courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction will not function in a vacuum and must take due notice of social and moral environments, refusing equitable relief to marriages contracted in violation of injunctions regarding Iddat and prohibited degrees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition for quashment of an F.I.R. can be granted when a marriage is contracted before the expiry of the Iddat period?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to protect a marriage contracted within the prohibited degree of relationship?
  • Whether equitable and discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction can be extended to petitioners who do not approach the court with clean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irfana Faiz and another vs State and 2 others2006 PLJ Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi vs Bashir Ahmad2006 CLC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-08
  maintenance allowanceconstitutional petitionfamily lawdisobedient daughterright to maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge the judgments of the lower appellate court and the family court, which had dismissed the petitioner's suit for maintenance allowance against her father. The core legal question was whether a grown-up, marriageable daughter who voluntarily leaves her father's house without his consent and refuses to live with him or contract a marriage arranged by him is entitled to claim maintenance from him. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a father is not liable to maintain a grown-up and disobedient daughter who lives away from his house without his consent and refuses to return. The key principle laid down is that an adult daughter who forsakes her father's home without justification and defies his lawful authority regarding her residence and marriage forfeits her right to maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a father liable to pay maintenance allowance to a grown-up daughter who lives away from his house without his consent?
  • Does an adult daughter forfeit her right to maintenance by refusing to contract a marriage arranged by her father?
  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained against concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing a suit for maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi vs Bashir Ahmad and 2 others2006 PLJ Lahore 1389 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi and 3 otherss vs Noor Din and otherss2006 YLR 2701 · Lahore High Court · 2004-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Bibi vs President of Pakistan through Section Officer and another2006 PLC (C.S.) 1051 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-05
  constitutional petitionWafaqi Mohtasibdepartmental penaltyrepresentationcriminal acquittalright of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court via a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to assail orders passed by the President of Pakistan accepting a representation against the recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequently dismissing a review petition. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the grievance regarding departmental penalties and the necessity of a personal hearing before the President under Article 32 of President Order No. 1 of 1983. The Court held that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically obliterate an unchallenged departmental penalty, and that a personal hearing is not strictly necessary when the order contains reasoned acceptance of a representation after considering replies. The petition was accordingly dismissed based on established precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically obliterate an unchallenged departmental penalty?
  • Is a personal hearing mandatory when passing an order on a representation under Article 32 of President Order No. 1 of 1983 if the order contains reasons and considers the reply?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against an order of the President passed on representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Meiji and 4 otherss vs Mahfooz Ali and otherss2006 YLR 1067 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ijaz Begum vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and 3 otherss2006 YLR 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2004-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husina Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Shahr Sultan, District Muzaffargarh and 5 otherss2006 YLR 65 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husina Bibi vs Station House Officer, P.S. Shahr Sultan, District2006 PLJ Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Huma Bilal vs Ghulam Farid2006 PLJ Lahore 131 · Lahore High Court · 2005-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi and 6 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others2006 MLD 1149 · Lahore High Court · 2004-03-15
  partition suitco-sharerlicenseepublic policyunconscionable agreementrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit and granted a preliminary decree for partition of the suit land. The core legal question involved the enforceability of a restrictive and unconscionable agreement dated 18-9-1968 and the effect of a gift of share by one of the co-plaintiffs to the defendants, making them co-sharers. The Lahore High Court held that the agreement containing irrational and feudal stipulations was against public policy and human rights, rendering it illegal and unenforceable. Furthermore, upon the transfer of a share through a gift to the defendants, they became co-sharers in the property, and the partition of only a specific portion occupied by them was impermissible. The revision petition was consequently allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that unconscionable agreements violating human rights and public policy are unenforceable, and alienation of a share makes the transferee a co-sharer, altering the nature of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement containing irrational and feudal stipulations is enforceable under the law?
  • What is the legal effect on a tenancy or license agreement when one of the co-owners gifts their share to the occupant?
  • Can a partial partition of land be allowed when the occupant has become a co-sharer in the joint holding?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifa Bibi and anothers vs The State2006 YLR 2955 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-28
  post-arrest bailabductionZina (Enforcement of Hudood)further inquirydelayed F.I.R.criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by Mst. Hanifa Bibi and Mst. Naseem alias Bhago, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained delay of several days in lodging the F.I.R. and noted that the alleged abductee had been returned by the petitioners prior to the registration of the case, suggesting a bona fide gesture. Finding that the petitioners' involvement required further inquiry and that their continued incarceration was not justified, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that unexplained delay in reporting an offense, combined with mitigating circumstances like the voluntary return of an alleged victim, warrants the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the voluntary return of an alleged abductee by the accused a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall under the category of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Ismail2006 YLR 1476 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Begum and 11 others vs Muhammad Jafar2006 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 2004-02-25
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadcivil revisionburden of proofservice of noticewaiver
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption, asserting he performed Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad upon learning of the sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the pre-emptor failed to prove these requirements, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptor had timely knowledge of the sale and whether the statutory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were strictly satisfied. The High Court held that the appellate court misread the evidence regarding the date of knowledge and failed to properly evaluate the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the mere dispatch of a notice for Talb-i-Ishhad is insufficient; the pre-emptor must prove actual service or refusal, which was not established here. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate decree and dismissed the suit, affirming that failure to perform the Talbs within the prescribed time and manner extinguishes the right of pre-emption. The judgment emphasizes that strict compliance with these procedural requirements is mandatory for a successful pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere dispatch of a notice for Talb-i-Ishhad satisfy the requirements of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 without proof of service or refusal?
  • Can a party raise legal points in a revision petition that were not explicitly argued before the appellate court if they emerge from the record?
  • Does the failure to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat immediately upon gaining knowledge of a sale extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  • Is an appellate court required to address all material findings of the trial court, including those regarding the performance of Talbs, before reversing a decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Khatoon and others vs Mummal and others2006 C.L.R. 492 · Lahore High Court · 2005-04-27
  specific performanceretrospective application of lawmarginal witnessesQanun-e-Shahadat Orderburden of proofcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioners' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated August 25, 1966. The core legal question was whether the evidentiary requirement of producing two marginal witnesses, as mandated by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, applied to an agreement executed prior to its promulgation. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of two marginal witnesses, as the law was not in force at the time of the agreement's execution. The High Court held that the lower courts committed a material irregularity by applying the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order retrospectively. The Court found that the execution of the agreement was sufficiently proven by the testimony of one marginal witness and the scribe, especially given the unavailability of other witnesses due to death. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned decrees and decreed the suit, establishing the principle that evidentiary requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order do not apply to documents executed before its commencement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of producing two marginal witnesses under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to documents executed before its promulgation?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be decreed based on the testimony of a single marginal witness if the agreement predates the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Khatoon And Others vs Mummal And Other2006 CLC 664 · Lahore High Court · 2005-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamedan Bibi vs Lahore Development Authority through its Director2006 C.L.R. 339 · Lahore High Court · 2005-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran Begum vs Kh. Dil Muhammad Yousaf and others2006 C.L.R. 651 · Lahore High Court · 2004-11-26
  demarcation of landejectment suitlocal commissionerrevisional jurisdictionencroachmentcivil revisionland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from two suits for possession through ejectment, where the respondents alleged the petitioners encroached upon their allotted land. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in relying on a flawed demarcation report to decree the suits. The High Court held that the judgments were unsustainable due to material irregularities in the demarcation proceedings. The Court found that the Local Commissioner failed to conduct actual measurements or issue mandatory notices, rendering the report unreliable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The key principle laid down is that a demarcation report lacking actual measurements and adherence to statutory procedures, such as those prescribed in the Land Revenue Act and Rules, cannot form the basis of a decree. Furthermore, when a dispute hinges on boundary identification, the Trial Court is obligated to exercise its authority under Order XXVI, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to appoint a commission for a proper site inspection to determine the factual position.

  Questions settled

  • Is a demarcation report prepared without actual measurements and proper notice to the affected parties legally sustainable?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to appoint a local commissioner to resolve boundary disputes when existing evidence is insufficient?
  • Can a court rely on a demarcation report that fails to adhere to the procedures prescribed in the Land Revenue Rules 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bibi vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ADBP) through Manager2006 CLD 261 · Lahore High Court · 2005-05-26
  banking suitleave to defendlimitation periodrecovery of financesnew plea on appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, whereby the appellant's application for leave to defend a recovery suit was dismissed and a decree for Rs.4,54,110 with costs was issued against the appellant. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant's application for leave to defend was barred by time under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and whether a new plea not raised before the trial court can be urged in the appellate court. The Lahore High Court held that the application for leave to defend was filed beyond the mandatory thirty-day period from the date of first service and that no grounds for condonation were made out, while also affirming that the appellant admitted availing the loan and failed to raise substantial questions of law or fact. Furthermore, the court held that a litigant cannot be permitted to raise a new and different plea in the appellate court which was not agitated before the lower forum. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Within what period must an application for leave to defend be filed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a defendant raise a new plea in the appellate court that was not raised in the application for leave to defend before the Banking Court?
  • What constitutes valid first service for the purpose of computing limitation for filing an application for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Parveen vs Muhammad Tayyab2006 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulshan Parveen vs Muhammad Tayyab2006 PLJ Lahore 839 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-16
  pecuniary jurisdictionvaluation of suitappellate court powersfailure of justicecivil revisionsuits valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate court's order that set aside a trial court's judgment on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a declaration regarding the invalidity of gift deeds and mutations. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can set aside a trial court's decree based on pecuniary jurisdiction objections when such objections were not raised in the court of first instance and where no failure of justice on the merits was demonstrated. The Court held that under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, an appellate court is prohibited from entertaining objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction unless they were raised at or before the framing of issues in the trial court, or unless the appellate court records that the valuation error prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits. Finding neither condition met, the Court set aside the appellate order, ruling that the objection was invalid and the appeal must be decided on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court set aside a trial court's judgment due to pecuniary jurisdiction defects if no such objection was raised at the trial stage?
  • What conditions must be satisfied for an appellate court to entertain an objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of a trial court?
  • Does an error in the valuation of a suit automatically invalidate a decree if it did not prejudicially affect the disposal of the suit on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs The State and 2 otherss2006 YLR 105 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-18
  habeas corpuscustody of minorcriminal revisionguardians and wardspreferential right of custodyinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing an application for the recovery and custody of the petitioner's daughter under section 491, Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether habeas corpus jurisdiction under section 491, Cr.P.C. could be invoked for the recovery and handing over the custody of a daughter whose age was disputed and who prima facie appeared to be a major, and where an earlier custody arrangement was settled via a family settlement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the custody of the major daughter with the father cannot be declared illegal or improper, the petitioner's version of abduction was doubtful, and an alternate remedy exists before the Guardian Court. The key principles laid down are that habeas corpus under section 491, Cr.P.C. is not applicable where the alleged detenue is a major and factual controversies regarding age and abduction exist, leaving the parties to seek remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

  Questions settled

  • Whether habeas corpus under section 491, Cr.P.C. is maintainable for the custody of a person who prima facie appears to be a major?
  • Can the High Court interfere in revision with an order dismissing a habeas corpus petition where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  • Does an alternate remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 bar the invocation of section 491, Cr.P.C. in disputed custody matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Muhammad Shafi and anothers2006 YLR 1280 · Lahore High Court · 2005-12-14
  execution of decreeobjection petitionagreement to sellspecific performancerevisional jurisdictionsummary dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a revisional order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which had reversed an executing court's dismissal of an objection petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had obtained a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was maintained up to the High Court. During execution, Respondent No. 1 filed objections claiming possession based on a subsequent agreement to sell executed by the judgment-debtor after the decree was passed. The executing court dismissed the objection petition summarily, but the revisional court remanded the matter for a full trial with framing of issues. The High Court accepted the constitutional petition, holding that a mere agreement to sell does not create any title or interest, nor does it equip the holder to resist execution of a finalized decree. Since Respondent No. 1 claimed under the judgment-debtor and lacked an independent title, no detailed investigation or framing of issues was required under Order XXI Rules 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent agreement to sell executed by a judgment-debtor after a decree has been passed create any right or interest to resist the execution of that decree?
  • Is an executing court required to frame issues and conduct a full trial on an objection petition filed by a person claiming under the judgment-debtor without an independent title?
  • Does the mere filing of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar an executing court from proceeding with the execution and satisfaction of a finalized decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Mst. Muradan and 10 otherss2006 YLR 1172 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-12
  civil revisioninheritance disputeappellate jurisdictionappraisal of evidenceremand of casefirst appealduty of appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil revisions concerning inheritance disputes, specifically regarding the lineage of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and the validity of inheritance mutations. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the judgment rendered by the first appellate court met the legal requirements of a valid judgment, particularly regarding the proper appraisal of evidence. The High Court found that the appellate court's judgments were stereotypical, merely reproducing pleadings and contentions without engaging in a critical analysis of the evidence. Crucially, the appellate court failed to discuss vital evidence, including a previous statement of a key witness (Exh.D.1) which had been ignored by both the trial and appellate courts. The High Court held that the appellate court failed to exercise its jurisdiction as a court of law and fact by neglecting to consider significant aspects of the case. Consequently, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a first appellate court must independently appraise the entire evidence on record and provide reasoned findings, rather than merely reproducing trial court records.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment that merely reproduces pleadings and contentions without discussing evidence satisfy the requirements of a valid appellate judgment?
  • Is a first appellate court required to independently appraise the evidence on record?
  • Can a judgment be set aside if the appellate court fails to consider vital evidence or admissions made by a key witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 4 otherss vs Sami Ullah and 4 otherss2006 YLR 1290 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-18
  declaratory suitmutationsale considerationlimitationburden of proofrevenue recordinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a declaratory suit filed by the legal heirs of the deceased owner against a disputed sale mutation. The core legal questions involved the proof of consideration for the sale mutation, the legal evidentiary value of a mutation regarding title, and the computation of limitation for challenging a fraudulent mutation. The Lahore High Court held that a mutation is merely a record of a previously concluded transaction and does not by itself create title, and where the passing of consideration and the execution of the sale are not proved by producing material witnesses, the mutation cannot be sustained. Furthermore, limitation to challenge a fraudulent mutation begins from the date of knowledge when the heirs discover the fraud rather than the date of the mutation itself. The Court laid down that revenue entries based on an unproved mutation carry no presumption of correctness and that legal heirs are entitled to seek a declaration of title based on inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation by itself create title to immovable property?
  • From what point does limitation run for filing a declaratory suit against a fraudulent sale mutation discovered after the death of the owner?
  • Can a sale mutation be sustained when the vendees fail to prove the passing of consideration and fail to examine the identifying witnesses?
  • Does a presumption of correctness attach to revenue entries based on an unproved sale mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Tarrar And Another vs Bloomfield Hall School Through Administrator And 5 Other2006 CLC 1498 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima & anothers vs Khush Naseeb Khan and others2006 PLJ Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 2005-05-24
  inheritancerehabilitation settlement schemecivil revisionpredeceased sonallotted landmutation of inheritanceco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration concerning inheritance rights to land allotted to the deceased, Abdul Ghafoor. The petitioners, widow and daughter of Abdul Shakoor (a predeceased son of Abdul Ghafoor), challenged the exclusion of their predecessor from the inheritance mutation. While the trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit based on findings that Abdul Shakoor predeceased his father, the petitioners raised a new legal plea in revision regarding the applicability of Para-46 of the Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, arguing that since the land was not a confirmed allotment at the time of mutation, inheritance should be governed by said scheme. The High Court held that even though the plea was raised late, the court is empowered under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief based on admitted facts. The Court ruled that under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, the grandchild is entitled to inherit, deeming the predeceased father to have survived the grandfather. The suit was decreed, granting the granddaughter a 1/8 share in the suit land.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief based on admitted facts even if the specific legal plea was not raised in lower courts?
  • Is the inheritance of land held by a non-confirmed allottee governed by the Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Does a grandchild have a right to inherit from a grandfather if the grandchild's parent predeceased the grandfather, under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fateh Bibi vs Muhammad Aslam and anothers2006 YLR 1934 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fateh Begum Through Special Attorney vs Ghulam Sarwar Through L.Rs2006 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 2004-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chanan Bibi and 6 otherss vs Imtiaz and 2 otherss2006 YLR 313 · Lahore High Court · 2005-06-27
  Islamabad Oustees Schemeproprietary rightstemporary leaseillegal allotmentrevenue authoritycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and cancellation of a land allotment. The respondents challenged the allotment of land to the petitioners' predecessor under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, arguing that it was made during the subsistence of their temporary lease and that the land was not included in the required schedule for such oustees. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but after a remand, the lower courts decreed in favor of the respondents. The Lahore High Court examined the legal requirements regarding allotments to Islamabad Oustees and held that allotment of land not forming part of the official schedule is illegal and void, rendering limitation and estoppel inapplicable. However, the High Court found that the lower courts' decrees exceeded the respondents' actual prayers and lease extents. Consequently, the revision petition was partly allowed; the declaration of illegality was restricted to the land comprised in the respondents' lease, and the matter was remanded to the revenue authority to determine proprietary rights and adjust the cancellation proportionally.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme is valid if the land is not part of the official schedule?
  • Does the question of limitation or estoppel arise when an administrative allotment of land is found to be illegal and void?
  • Can a civil court decree go beyond the specific prayer and extent of lease claimed by the plaintiffs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. C. Gabriel alias Shamim vs Member (Judicial Board of Revenue2006 PLJ Lahore 365 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Parveen vs Selection/Recruitment Committee of2006 PLJ Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 2005-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Misbah Saddique vs S.H.O. and 3 others2006 MLD 1756 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-21
  Hizanatcustody of minorhabeas corpuswelfare of minorGuardian Judgeremarriage of mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the custody of a minor female child. The petitioner, the mother, had lost her right of Hizanat (custody) due to contracting a second marriage with a person not within the prohibited degree of the minor. While the petitioner argued that the right of custody should automatically transfer to the maternal grandmother, the respondents contended that the minor was currently with the paternal grandmother. The Court held that while the legal principle regarding the transfer of custody rights upon the mother's remarriage is established, the determination of custody between competing claimants, such as the maternal and paternal grandmothers, cannot be resolved in summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that such disputes require an inquiry into the welfare of the minor, which is the paramount consideration, and must be adjudicated by a competent Guardian Judge. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, leaving the parties to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dispute regarding the custody of a minor between two grandmothers be resolved in summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the supreme consideration in determining custody disputes?
  • Does the right of Hizanat automatically transfer to the maternal grandmother when the mother loses her right due to remarriage with a person outside the prohibited degree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Begum vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2006 PLJ Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum Alias Jimmi vs Muhammad Ibrahim Through L.Rs.2006 CLC 862 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-08
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadcivil revisionappreciation of evidenceattorney as witnesspossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption, where the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts that dismissed her suit for failing to establish the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence regarding the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat, specifically the admissibility and weight of testimony provided by the pre-emptor's husband acting as her attorney, and the corroborating testimony of other witnesses. The High Court held that the lower courts misconstrued the evidence, particularly by ignoring the testimony of the informer and misinterpreting the attorney's evidence. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that an attorney may lawfully give evidence on behalf of a principal, especially where the principal is an elderly lady. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, finding that the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat was sufficiently established. The suit was decreed in favor of the petitioner, subject to the deposit of the sale price and registration charges within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor prove the performance of Talbs through the testimony of an attorney instead of appearing personally?
  • Does the failure of a witness to mention the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in examination-in-chief invalidate their testimony if it is stated during cross-examination?
  • Is the testimony of an attorney who is also the husband of the pre-emptor admissible in a suit for pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bidhai vs Muhammad Suleman though Legal Heirss2006 YLR 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2005-01-27
  specific performancefiduciary relationshipagreement to selldiscretionary reliefcivil revisioninheritance rights
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil revisions arose from suits for specific performance filed by the respondent against his mother, the petitioner, based on agreements to sell concerning agricultural land acquired under the Chashma Barrage Scheme. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the appellate court reversed that decision and decreed the suits. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Lahore High Court examined the evidence and noted material discrepancies in the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses regarding the execution and negotiation of the agreements. The Court held that given the fiduciary relationship between a mother and son, the petitioner's illiteracy, old age, village background, and the fact that the transaction deprived her other children of inheritance, the evidence was too shaky to sustain specific performance. Furthermore, under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, specific performance is discretionary and ought not to be granted where the circumstances and relationship of the parties render it inequitable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the appellate decrees, and dismissed the suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether specific performance of a contract can be refused by the court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act?
  • Does a fiduciary relationship between a mother and son require stronger scrutiny of an agreement to sell executed in favour of the son?
  • Whether material discrepancies in the statements of plaintiff witnesses are sufficient to discard shaky evidence in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhagari vs Khta and 2 otherss2006 YLR 394 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhagan vs Sultan2006 YLR 1783 · Lahore High Court · 2004-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs The State2006 YLR 2887 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-31
  extra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderacquittalrelying on weak evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband. The core legal question revolves around whether an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, in the absence of other direct or circumstantial evidence and alongside the acquittal of co-accused, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Lahore High Court held that an extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence that requires strong corroboration, which was entirely lacking in this case, especially given that the co-accused had already been acquitted and the initial report stated an accidental death. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, granted the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that capital or major punishment cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a weak, uncorroborated extra-judicial confession without reliable supporting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a conviction be upheld solely on an extra-judicial confession when co-accused facing the same allegations have been acquitted?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession considered a weak type of evidence requiring independent corroboration under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran And 24 Others vs Naib Tehsildar, Bhalwal, District2006 CLC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi vs Arif Hussain and 4 others2006 PLJ Lahore 951 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi and otherss vs Ameer Alam Munir and 2 otherss2006 YLR 785 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees Fatima and anothers vs Malik Javaid Baz Khan and 2 otherss2006 YLR 1264 · Lahore High Court · 2005-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhho Mai and 3 otherss vs Sohrab and anothers2006 YLR 1260 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-19
  specific performancecivil revisionmutationmisreading of evidencepleadingstitle disputeearnest money
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for specific performance concerning a disputed property. The respondent No.1 claimed ownership based on a receipt dated 10-9-1994, while the petitioners, successors-in-interest of a subsequent purchaser, claimed title through a mutation entered on 12-9-1994. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of respondent No.1. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in its findings of fact regarding the validity of the competing claims of title and the alleged misreading of evidence. The High Court upheld the appellate decree, finding that the transaction in favor of respondent No.1 was complete and final, leaving no title for the vendor to transfer to the petitioners. The Court held that minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the location of the vendor did not materially affect the case. Furthermore, the Court established that a party cannot rely on a fact in evidence that was neither pleaded nor proved in the written statement, dismissing the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party rely on a fact in evidence that was not pleaded in the written statement?
  • Does a minor discrepancy in witness testimony regarding the location of a vendor materially affect the validity of a transaction?
  • Can a vendor transfer title to a subsequent purchaser if the property has already been sold through a prior valid transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhan vs Ahmad Yar2006 YLR 831 · Lahore High Court · 2004-09-22
  Pardanashin ladiesburden of proofsale deed validityfraudulent transactioncivil revisioninterested witnessexecution of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns the validity of sale deeds executed by Pardanashin illiterate ladies, who alleged that the transactions were fraudulent and maneuvered by their brother to deprive them of inherited property. The core legal question was whether the respondent (alienee) successfully proved the genuineness of the sales, including the payment of consideration and the conscious execution of deeds by the ladies. The Court held that when Pardanashin ladies deny the execution of sale deeds, the initial burden of proof is discharged, shifting the onus onto the alienee to prove that the ladies executed the deeds with independent advice and conscious application of mind. The Court found that the respondent failed to discharge this burden, as the identification of the ladies was not proven, and the evidence provided by interested witnesses was insufficient. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioners, except for one petitioner who admitted the sale in court. The judgment reaffirms the strict evidentiary requirements for proving transactions involving Pardanashin women.

  Questions settled

  • What is the burden of proof when a Pardanashin illiterate lady challenges a sale deed as fraudulent?
  • Does the admission of a co-defendant regarding a sale transaction bind other co-defendants?
  • Is the registration of a sale deed sufficient to prove its valid execution when the identity of the executant is disputed?
  • Can an appellate court's judgment be set aside if it ignores the failure of the alienee to prove the payment of consideration in a transaction involving Pardanashin women?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azra Perveen vs Pakistan Cricket Board through its Chief2006 PLJ Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 2005-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Bibi vs District Judge2006 PLJ Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anweri Bibi and others vs Amina Bibi and 5 others2006 MLD 1614 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina (deceased) through Legal Heirs and otherss vs Mst. Jameela2006 YLR 870 · Lahore High Court · 2004-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Altaf Bibi vs Government of Pakistan etc.2006 C.L.R. 409 · Lahore High Court · 2002-10-30
  Government accommodationCivil servantUnauthorized occupantUltra viresConstitutional jurisdictionEstate OfficeHereditary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the son of a deceased Federal Government servant, challenging the refusal of the Estate Office to allot him an official Government quarter previously occupied by his late father. The petitioner sought a direction to the Government of Pakistan to issue an allotment letter. The core legal question was whether the family of a deceased civil servant possesses a vested right to retain or be allotted Government accommodation, and whether rules permitting such retention are valid. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant with no legal right to the accommodation. The Court ruled that Government accommodation is not a hereditary asset and that allowing families of deceased servants to retain it usurps the rights of other entitled civil servants. Furthermore, the Court declared Rule 15 of the rules for the allotment of residential accommodation to Federal Servants (SRO 749(1)/2002) ultra vires, asserting that such rules create discriminatory hereditary rights and negate the principles of equal opportunity and public accountability in the distribution of state assets.

  Questions settled

  • Does the family of a deceased civil servant have a legal right to retain Government accommodation after the death of the allottee?
  • Is Rule 15 of the rules for the allotment of residential accommodation to Federal Servants (SRO 749(1)/2002) ultra vires the powers of the President under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to protect an unauthorized occupant of Government property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Altaf Bibi vs Government of Pakistan and others2006 PLC (C.S.) 803 · Lahore High Court · 2004-05-26
  Government accommodationallotment of quarterunauthorized occupanthereditary rightscivil servantsultra viresconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the widow of a deceased Federal Government teacher whose son, subsequently appointed as a Naib Qasid, was denied the allotment of the official quarter previously occupied by his late father. The petitioner challenged this denial, seeking a direction for the allotment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner and her family became unauthorized occupants after the expiry of the prescribed period following the employee's death. The Court ruled that official accommodation is not an inheritable estate and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the children of deceased employees. It held that allowing such allotments creates an unauthorized class of hereditary rights, depriving other entitled civil servants on the waiting list. Consequently, the Court declared Rule 15 of the Rules for the Allotment of Residential Accommodation to the Federal Servants (notified via SRO 749(1)/2002) ultra vires of the rule-making powers under Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, read with Fundamental Rules 45 and 45-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the family of a deceased civil servant has a legal right to retain or be allotted the official accommodation previously occupied by the deceased?
  • Can the children of a deceased civil servant claim hereditary or preferential rights over government accommodation upon securing employment?
  • Whether Rule 15 of the Rules for the Allotment of Residential Accommodation to the Federal Servants 2002 is ultra vires of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi And 26 Others vs Ashiq Hussain And 5 Other2006 CLC 933 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi And 14 Others vs Muhammad Sian And 4 Other2006 CLC 935 · Lahore High Court · 2003-01-06
  civil revisionmutation of giftlimitationPardanasheen ladyburden of proofco-sharerdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Narowal, which decreed the respondent's declaratory suit concerning a disputed mutation of gift dated 19-5-1957. The core legal question involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the defendants successfully proved the factum of a valid gift made by a Pardanasheen female. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff, being a Pardanasheen lady who challenged a fraudulent mutation and established joint possession as a co-sharer receiving produce until recently, filed her suit within time, and that the defendants failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the essential elements of a valid gift including proposal, acceptance, delivery of possession, and the proper attestation of the mutation. The court laid down the principle that when a gift is alleged against a female Pardanasheen lady and a fraudulent mutation is challenged, the burden strictly lies upon the beneficiaries to prove the valid creation of the gift through cogent evidence, and limitation does not run against her until knowledge of the fraud is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit challenging a gift mutation filed by a female Pardanasheen lady is barred by limitation when she alleges fraud and claims continued co-shareership and receipt of produce?
  • Upon whom lies the heavy burden of proof to establish the validity of a gift when it is contested by the alleged donor?
  • What are the essential ingredients that must be proved to establish a valid gift of immovable property?
  • Whether non-production of the Revenue Officer who attested a disputed gift mutation affects the credibility of the defense raised by the beneficiaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Parveen Chatha vs Chief Election Commissioner2006 YLR 737 · Lahore High Court · 2005-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mst Shezan Sanaullah vs The StateK.L.R. 2006 Criminal Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 2005-12-23
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequepenal clausecontractual disputeprohibitory clausebail for womenfurther inquiryliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an order declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Mst. Shezan Sanaullah, who was accused in FIR No. 460 registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque given as a guarantee under an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a post-dated cheque as a penalty or guarantee in a civil transaction attracts the penal consequences of section 489-F, PPC, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the nature of the dispute and her status as a female. The Lahore High Court held that where a dispute stems from a business or contractual obligation involving questions of liquidated damages versus penalty, and where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case falls under further inquiry. The Court laid down that bail is the rule where the offence is punishable with up to three years imprisonment and does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and that women are additionally entitled to concessions under the statutory proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C., alongside the principle that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail differ.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to post-dated cheques issued purely as guarantees or penalties in contractual disputes?
  • Whether an offence carrying a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a female accused entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Do the legal considerations for granting bail before arrest differ from those for granting bail after arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Shaheen Noon And Another vs Allied Bank Of Pakistan Through Its2006 P.C.T.L.R. 759 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst Sajrda Perveen vs City District Government Through Its District Nazim2006 Labour & Service Cases 360 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst Rehana Bashir vs Mst. Badar Jehan and others2006 C.L.R. 749 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mst Rabia Bibi And Another vs Bati And 6 OtherK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst Maryam Bibi vs Zulfiqar AliK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst Karima vs Muhammad YousifK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst Kafia Bibi And 6 Other vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 2006 Revenue Cases 146 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst Iram Jaffary Etc. vs K.A.S.B. Bank And 10 Others2006 P.C.T.L.R* 1047 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-28
  financial institutionexecution of decreeobjection petitiongift deedterritorial jurisdictionregistrationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, challenges the order of the Banking Court dismissing the appellant's objection petition against the execution proceedings of a bank decree. The bank had instituted a recovery suit and obtained a decree, subsequently putting the mortgaged property to auction. The appellant objected, claiming ownership based on a registered gift deed. The core legal question was whether the appellant successfully proved the valid execution and registration of the gift deed, and whether a gift deed registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the property is valid. The court held that the appellant failed to prove the execution of the gift deed through required independent evidence, marginal witnesses, or the scribe, and that the registration of the deed outside the sub-district where the property is situated violated Section 28 of the Registration Act, rendering it void. The court laid down the principle that a party relying strictly on a registered document cannot fall back on an unpleaded oral gift, and that registration of a property document outside the proper territorial jurisdiction is without jurisdiction and void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an objector claiming ownership through a gift deed in execution proceedings is required to independently prove the execution and genuineness of the said gift deed?
  • Can a party relying upon a written and registered gift deed subsequently fall back upon an oral gift when the written document fails of proof?
  • Does the registration of a gift deed relating to immovable property in a sub-district where no portion of the property is situated render the document void?
  • Whether the failure to produce marginal witnesses, scribes, or the local commissioner precludes a party from establishing the valid execution of a registered gift deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Hamedan Bibi vs Lahore Development Authority Through Its DirectorK.L.R. 2006 Revenue Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 2005-06-27
  civil revisionres judicatabar of second suitland acquisitionplot exemptionplaint rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's second suit for declaration concerning land acquisition and plot exemption by the Lahore Development Authority. The core legal question is whether a second suit regarding the same subject-matter and relief is maintainable when the matter has already been litigated up to the Supreme Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the second suit is barred by res judicata and the principles relating to the splitting of claims under the Code of Civil Procedure. The key principle laid down is that a second suit for the same subject-matter after the final determination of the first round of litigation up to the Apex Court is legally incompetent and barred by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second suit for declaration regarding the same subject-matter and relief is maintainable after the matter has been finally settled up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does the concealment of a circular or material fact in an earlier round of litigation provide grounds to maintain a fresh suit barred by res judicata?
  • When can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Ghafooran And Other vs Muhammad Bashir And OtherK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 374 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-04
  specific performanceagreement to sellburden of proofmarginal witnessesattestation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 2.4.1962, filed by the legal heirs of Muhammad Rashid against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, more than eighteen years after the alleged execution of the agreement. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs successfully discharged the onus of proving the execution of the disputed agreement to sell in the absence of producing any marginal witnesses or establishing attestation through alternative legal means. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof required under the law, as none of the marginal witnesses were produced nor was their absence properly accounted for to allow secondary or alternative proof. Consequently, the Court set aside the decrees of the lower courts and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in its entirety. The key principle laid down is that a party relying upon an agreement to sell must strictly prove its execution and attestation through legally recognized modes of proof, and failure to produce or legally account for marginal witnesses proves fatal to the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance discharges the burden of proof regarding an agreement to sell without producing any marginal witnesses?
  • Can a court decree a suit for specific performance when there is a complete absence of evidence proving the execution of the agreement?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to produce available marginal witnesses to an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Aneela Arshad Khan vs Muhammad Kashif Aqeel Khan2006 C.L.R. 1455 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst Aneeia Arshad Khan vs Muhammad Kashif Aqeel KhanK.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-10Read full judgment →