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.

• Yaseen And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 516 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Wazir Shah and others vs The State1999 MLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Its Chairman, WAPDA Ho_a223224fK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 361 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman And 51999 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22
  temporary injunctionelectricity billWAPDAdisputed billirreparable lossdiscretionary jurisdictionsecurity bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves Civil Revisions challenging orders passed by the lower courts regarding a temporary injunction against the disconnection of electricity supply by WAPDA. The respondent filed a suit challenging a substantial electricity bill, claiming the furnace was inoperative during the billing period. The Trial Court granted a conditional injunction requiring the deposit of half the bill amount and a bank guarantee. The Appellate Court modified this, allowing the injunction upon furnishing a security bond. The core legal question was whether a court can grant a temporary injunction restraining electricity disconnection without requiring the consumer to deposit the disputed bill amount. The High Court held that the Appellate Court acted with material illegality by ignoring the mandatory requirements of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Court ruled that under the proviso to Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910, an injunction restraining the licensee from discontinuing supply is contingent upon the plaintiff depositing the assessed amount in court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in monetary disputes, the element of irreparable loss is absent, necessitating the deposit of the disputed sum as a condition for discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction restraining the disconnection of electricity supply without requiring the deposit of the disputed bill amount?
  • Is the deposit of the disputed electricity bill amount a mandatory condition under Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910, for obtaining an injunction against disconnection?
  • Does a dispute over a specific monetary sum satisfy the requirement of irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Watan Party and others vs Chief Minister and others1999 P Cr. L J 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-05Read full judgment →
• Wasim Ali, Etc. vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Wasim Ali Tabish and others vs Province of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 83 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Waryam vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shahr, District Khanewal and others1999 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Waryam and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ward Abbas vs Raja Waheed, Subinspector1999 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-21Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 555 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 4 others vs Muhammad Fayyaz Butt and anothers1999 MLD 2731 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01
  writ petitiontemporary injunctionelectricity disconnectiondetection billirreparable lossElectricity Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a civil dispute regarding the disconnection of electric supply and the issuance of a detection bill by WAPDA to a consumer. The core legal question revolves around the legality of granting a temporary injunction against the disconnection of electricity without requiring the deposit of disputed dues, in light of statutory bars. The Lahore High Court held that pecuniary loss does not constitute irreparable loss and that an appellate court acts illegally by modifying a temporary injunction to dispense with the deposit condition mandated by law. The Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's order requiring the deposit of the disputed amount, albeit modified to permit deposit in the form of National Saving Certificates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction restraining the disconnection of electricity can be granted without making it contingent upon the payment or deposit of outstanding charges?
  • Can apprehended pecuniary loss be termed as an irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
  • Whether the bar of jurisdiction under section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910 is attracted without prior service of notice under section 24?
  Read full judgment →
• Walt Dad vs Mst. Tasneem Kausar And Another1999 CLC 163 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19
  dowerhiba-bil-iwaznikahnamabona fide transfereespecific performanceregistration of giftestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a haveli. The respondent No.1 claimed the property was transferred to her by her husband (respondent No.2) in lieu of dower at the time of their marriage, a fact recorded in the Nikahnama. The appellant, the husband's uncle, claimed ownership through a subsequent exchange deed. The trial court, while acknowledging the validity of the gift in lieu of dower, dismissed the suit based on the appellant's claim of a bona fide exchange. The appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the transfer of property in lieu of dower at the time of marriage is a valid gift under Muslim Law, not requiring registration as a sale under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court further held that the appellant failed to prove a bona fide transfer, particularly given the familial relationship and the timing of the exchange during pending litigation, and affirmed that a court may grant relief based on averments even if not specifically prayed for.

  Questions settled

  • Does a transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower at the time of marriage require registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can a court grant relief to a party based on the averments in the plaint even if that specific relief was not explicitly prayed for?
  • Does the failure to claim a specific relief in a previous suit, which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one, bar a subsequent suit for that relief under the principle of estoppel or waiver?
  • Is a transfer of property in lieu of dower considered a sale requiring a registered instrument?
  Read full judgment →
• Walidad vs (Mst.) Tasneem Kausar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Wali-Ur-Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 999 Shariat Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Waheed Corporation vs Chairman C.D.a, Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 178 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Waheed Corporation (Regd.) vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad, through Its Chairman, EtcK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 531 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wafi Associates Limited vs Tasneem Ismail and 5 other1999 YLR 2711 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Vneshneeconomicheskoje Objedinenie Technopromexport, MoscowK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 276 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Vneshnee Conomicheskoje Objedinenuetechnopromexport, Moscow1999 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Usman Sarosh Alvi vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others1999 YLR 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab vs Muhammad Mubashar Mukarram SheikhK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 503 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• United Steel Corporation, Moman Pura, Darughawala, G.T. Road, Lahore and 4 others vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited1999 YLR 2071 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-14
  leave to defendbanking recoverytriable issuesapprobate and reprobatebankers' books evidencepartnership liabilityfinance facility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Banking Court's decree against the appellants for the recovery of finance facilities. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their application for leave to defend, arguing that the Banking Court failed to apply its mind and that the documents were forged or unauthorized. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants raised valid triable issues warranting leave to defend and whether the definition of 'customer' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, encompassed the appellants' situation. The Court held that the appellants failed to establish a plausible defense, as they had previously admitted their liabilities in writing and the documents were duly executed. The Court affirmed that the definition of 'customer' includes sureties and indemnifiers, and that partners are jointly and severally liable for firm debts. The ratio established that leave to defend must be refused if the defense is sham or illusory, but granted if substantial triable issues exist. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Banking Court's decision to decree the suit based on the admitted financial facilities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'customer' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 include a surety or indemnifier?
  • Under what circumstances should a Banking Court refuse an application for leave to defend a recovery suit?
  • Is a statement of accounts certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 admissible in a banking recovery suit?
  • Are partners of a firm jointly and independently responsible for the repayment of debts owed by the firm?
  Read full judgment →
• United Distributors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Madina Traders1999 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Chairman, Banking Tribunal-I And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 81 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs CH. Ghulam Hussain1999 P.C.T.L.R. 162 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs The Chairman, Banking Tribunali, Lahore and others1999 MLD 3267 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Umer Hayat vs The State1999 MLD 349 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Umer Gul vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Umer Din vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1339 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Umar Khatab alias Kaka and another vs The State1999 YLR 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-15Read full judgment →
• Tuffail And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Track Knitwear vs Union Leasing Ltd.1999 YLR 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• TM Muhammad vs The State1999 MLD 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Tasawar Hussain Naqvi1999 P Cr. L J 625 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Station House Officer, Police Alpa, Multan and others1999 P Cr. L J 2015 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shameer and 3 others1999 YLR 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Younis and another1999 YLR 715 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Riaz and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 232 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto1999 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Intizar HussainK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Mujtaba and anothers1999 MLD 426 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• The Pakistan Telecom Company Lions Staff Union, Lahore through President vs The National Industrial Relations Commission through Chairman-cum-Registrar and 2 others1999 PLC 320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Ordinance 1969NIRCfunctus officiopower of reviewgeneral superintendenceconstitutional jurisdictionreferendumjurisdiction by consent
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed in the Lahore High Court challenging decisions of the Full Bench and Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL).

  The key legal questions addressed were whether an appeal lies under Section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 to the Full Bench of NIRC against a CBA determination, whether the Chairman has review or supervisory powers to set aside a CBA certificate issued under his direction, and whether jurisdiction can be conferred by consent.

  The High Court held that determination of a CBA constitutes a 'decision', making an appeal under Section 22-D competent before the Full Bench. The Court further ruled that once a CBA certificate is issued, the Chairman becomes functus officio; he lacks statutory authority to review or recall his order, and his powers of general superintendence under Section 22-B do not entitle him to set aside his own determination. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of parties. Finding that setting aside the Full Bench's order would perpetuate the Chairman's original illegal act, the High Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 199 to dismiss the writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies under Section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 to the Full Bench of NIRC against a determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
  • Does the Chairman of the NIRC have the power to review or recall a Collective Bargaining Agent certificate once issued under his authority?
  • Can jurisdiction be conferred upon a judicial or quasi-judicial forum simply by the consent of the parties?
  • Can the general supervisory powers under Section 22-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be used by the Chairman NIRC to set aside a final CBA determination?
  • Will the High Court exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 if doing so would perpetuate an earlier illegal order?
  Read full judgment →
• The Lahore Textile And General Mills Ltd. vs The Collector Of Customs, Lahore And 2 OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 473 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax Zone, Gujranwala vs Messrs Anwar1999 PTD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26
  Income Tax Ordinance 1979F.O.B. salesC.I.F. salesmethod of accountingtax referenceexport tradepresumptive income tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four hundred sixty-one reference applications filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against various assessees regarding the computation of taxable income. The core legal question was whether the distinction between F.O.B. (Free on Board) and C.I.F. (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) terms constitutes a 'method of accounting' under Section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, thereby allowing the Assessing Officer to reject the assessee's chosen accounting basis. The Lahore High Court held that F.O.B. and C.I.F. are international mercantile contract terms defining the respective responsibilities of sellers and buyers, rather than methods of accounting. Consequently, these terms do not fall within the scope of Section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which governs accounting systems like cash or accrual. The Court ruled that the Revenue's attempt to treat these contractual terms as accounting methods was legally flawed, and the references were dismissed as they did not raise valid questions of law. The judgment emphasizes that accounting methods pertain to recording financial transactions, not the classification of export sales terms.

  Questions settled

  • Do F.O.B. and C.I.F. terms in international trade constitute a method of accounting under Section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an Assessing Officer reject an assessee's method of accounting without providing cogent reasons?
  • Does the computation of profit and gains in export trade fall under Section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone, Gujranwala vs M/s. Anwar1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1306 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs (Preventive), Customs House, Lahore vs Haji Fazal Din and 4 others1999 YLR 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
• Thal Development Authority vs Abdur Rehman1999 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Tauqir Ahmed Shah vs Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar and 2 others1999 YLR 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Zulfiqar vs The Judge, Family Court, Rajanpur1999 YLR 822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood alias Jawa and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz and others vs B.A. Fakhari, Judge Special Court, Antiterrorism, Dera Ghazi Khan and others1999 P Cr. L J 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-16Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs Director, Health Services, Multan Division, Multan and 41999 PLC (C.S.) 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Shahid vs The Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 41999 MLD 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Zia vs Sh. Muhammad Bashir1999 YLR 850 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hussain vs The State1999 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Karam Elahi through Legal Heirs1999 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Government of the Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Muhammad HussainK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 771 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and others vs Karim Bukhsh and others1999 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Din And Other vs Muhammad HussainK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Taj Din And Other vs Karim BukhshK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood and 4 others vs The State1999 YLR 430 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Farooq vs Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 552 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali Khilji vs Anne Zohra1999 CLC 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed) Basharat Hussain Zaidi And Others vs Federations Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 382 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah vs Mst. Perveen Akhtar and 2 others1999 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahseen Raza and others vs The Director, Anti Corruption1999 YLR 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Sarwat Hussain Zaidi vs Abdul Hameed1999 MLD 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Sarwar Hussain Zaidi vs Abdul Hameed1999 MLD 2931 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03
  summary suitleave to defendpromissory notecondonation of delaycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 100,000 filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, wherein the defendant's application for leave to defend was dismissed by the District Judge as time-barred and devoid of merit. The core legal question involves whether the trial court correctly dismissed the belated and sketchy application for leave to defend without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or disclosure of a valid defense. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted lawfully and judiciously in dismissing the time-barred application, as the defendant failed to explain each day of delay or disclose a plausible defense against the promissory note. The key principle laid down is that an application for leave to defend under summary proceedings must be filed within the prescribed statutory period with a rigorous explanation for any delay, and must set forth specific facts and a bona fide defense to warrant the grant of leave.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for leave to defend filed beyond the prescribed period of ten days can be entertained without explaining each day of delay?
  • Does a sketchy application failing to disclose a plausible defense or denying the execution of a promissory note warrant the grant of leave to defend?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in revisional jurisdiction with an order dismissing an application for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Abbas vs Illaqa Magistrate Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah vs Sheikh Amanat Ullah and 3 others1999 MLD 3404 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs Punjab Local Councils Authority and others1999 MLD 2813 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Istijab Hassan and 4 others vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Board of P Event Je_Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1999 YLR 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07
  settlement lawsrepeal of statutefunctus officiopast and closed transactionmukhbari applicationconstitutional petitionallotment of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the initiation of inquiry proceedings by the Settlement Department concerning an urban land allotment. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to reopen a finalized allotment and initiate fresh inquiry proceedings on a miscellaneous application after the repeal of the Settlement Laws, particularly when an earlier challenge via a mukhbari application had been dismissed. The Lahore High Court held that upon the repeal of the Settlement Laws, Settlement Authorities became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to reopen past and closed transactions or confirmed allotments where no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal. The Court ruled that entertaining a second miscellaneous application or initiating inquiries into a finalized allotment without surviving statutory jurisdiction is coram non judice and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that past and closed transactions under repealed settlement laws cannot be reopened or subjected to administrative inquiries by settlement authorities in the absence of pending proceedings at the relevant time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to reopen a finalized allotment after the repeal of Settlement Laws?
  • Can a second mukhbari or miscellaneous application be entertained regarding a subject-matter already decided by a competent authority?
  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to initiate inquiries into a confirmed allotment on a miscellaneous application filed after the repeal of the Settlement Laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan vs Khalid Wan, Additional District Judge, Lahore and 31999 YLR 2559 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Hashim Ali Shah vs Special Judge, Central Lahore and 2 others1999 MLD 2237 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1999 YLR 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationnon-appearancetrial court discretionabuse of processcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking pre-arrest bail after the petitioner's earlier bail was cancelled by the trial court due to his non-appearance. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused whose bail was revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to his failure to attend proceedings and cooperate with the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an accused who defaults on appearance and fails to provide a valid explanation for prolonged absence is not entitled to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that the provisions relating to pre-arrest bail are not meant to aid accused persons who evade trial processes, and trial courts are fully justified in cancelling bail and issuing warrants when an accused deliberately fails to cooperate or appear.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a court of competent jurisdiction has already cancelled the bail and issued warrants of arrest due to the accused's non-appearance?
  • Is an accused justified in seeking pre-arrest bail after failing to appear before the trial court and neglecting to provide any explanation for a prolonged absence following a short medical rest period?
  • Does an accused person who fails to cooperate in the trial and evades the process of the court remain entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghaus Anwar Shah And Others vs Makhdum Syed Waris Ghous1999 CLC 1581 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Caterers through Afzal Shah and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and 5 others1999 YLR 771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Naeem and 5 others vs Atta Rabbani and 2 others1999 MLD 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Shah vs Lal Khan And 8 Other1999 CLC 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17
  specific performancetemporary injunctionlis pendensalienation of propertyprima facie caseirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The appellant sought to restrain the respondents from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The respondents denied the execution of the agreement and the receipt of earnest money, asserting the documents were forged. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction is warranted when the underlying agreement is contested and whether the plaintiff faces irreparable loss. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case as the disputed documents were denied. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant would not suffer irreparable loss because the principle of lis pendens applies to the property. Consequently, any subsequent alienation would be subject to the final decree, and any future alienee could be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a temporary injunction justified in a suit for specific performance when the underlying agreement is denied by the defendant?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens adequately protect a plaintiff's interest in a suit for specific performance to warrant the refusal of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a subsequent alienee of property be impleaded as a party in a pending suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Alam and others vs Syed Ahmad Mahmud and others1999 MLD 2902 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Afaq Hussain Shah vs Chaudhary Sadaqat AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain And Another vs Government of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul.Raheem and others vs Mst. Shamim and others1999 YLR 904 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Aasim Hassan and 2 others vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 17 others1999 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sunny Flying Coach Service, Burewala vs Secretary RegionalK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 386 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1999 YLR 797 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21
  ex parte decreecivil revisionrevival of suitfraud and misrepresentationMartial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959Land Revenue Actnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which, while setting aside an ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner, also dismissed the petitioner's original suit. The core legal question was whether a court, upon finding that an ex parte decree was obtained through fraud or without jurisdiction, is empowered to dismiss the underlying suit entirely, or whether it must revive the suit for adjudication on its merits. The High Court held that when a court determines an ex parte decree is unsustainable due to procedural defects like lack of notice or fraud, it should set aside the decree and revive the original suit for a decision on merits, rather than dismissing the suit itself. The court emphasized that dismissing the suit prevents the adjudication of other substantive issues, such as the validity of land transactions under Martial Law Regulations and the potential entitlement to compensation. The principle laid down is that the scope of proceedings challenging a decree is limited to determining the decree's validity; once the decree is annulled, the original suit must be restored for trial.

  Questions settled

  • When a court sets aside an ex parte decree on the grounds of fraud or lack of jurisdiction, is it legally permissible to dismiss the underlying suit, or must the suit be revived?
  • Does the insertion of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a separate suit to challenge a decree on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Can a civil court examine whether an authority acting under a Martial Law Regulation has exceeded its jurisdiction or violated principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mubariz through his Legal Heirs vs Gul Muhammad and another1999 YLR 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs Superintendent of Police, Lodhran1999 YLR 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood and another vs The State1999 MLD 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and 24 others vs The State1999 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager1999 YLR 2429 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Aslam and others1999 MLD 335 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-01Read full judgment →