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.

• Pervez Akhtar and another . vs The State1999 MLD 731 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ahmad Khan Burki and 3 others vs Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-24
  demarcation of landrevenue jurisdictionagricultural landbuilding siteconstitutional petitioncivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges a notice issued by revenue authorities for the demarcation of specific property in Lahore. The petitioners contended that the property in question consists of built-up land forming part of a bungalow and is not agricultural land; therefore, revenue authorities lack jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, to conduct demarcation proceedings. The core legal question was whether revenue officers possess the authority to demarcate land that has ceased to be agricultural and is occupied by permanent structures. The Court held that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction, ruling that under Section 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, land occupied as a building site or containing permanent structures loses its character as agricultural land. Consequently, such disputes must be resolved by Civil Courts rather than Revenue Courts. The petition was allowed, and the demarcation notice was declared without lawful authority, affirming that revenue officers cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-agricultural, built-up property.

  Questions settled

  • Do revenue officers have jurisdiction to demarcate land that is occupied by permanent structures or used as a building site?
  • Does land containing permanent structures lose its character as agricultural land under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Which forum has the jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding the partition or demarcation of land that has ceased to be agricultural?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Alias Piji vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 678 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz alias Paiji vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1915 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Pasand Shah vs The State1999 MLD 606 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Parvez Iqbal vs The State1999 YLR 751 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
• Parveen Aslam vs Sh. Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others1999 YLR 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Administrative1999 PLC (C.S) 958 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Agro-Forestry Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Another1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1290 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce Through Secretary Of Commerce And Another1999 CLC 1301 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation vs Messrs1999 MLD 2773 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17
  arbitration awardarbitrator authoritywaiver of objectionrule of the courtimplied consentstatutory time limitarbitration proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment making an arbitration award a 'Rule of the Court' in a dispute over a supply agreement. The appellant, Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO), challenged the award on grounds that the arbitrator, the Managing Director of PASSCO, ceased to hold office before the award was delivered, and that the award was issued beyond the statutory four-month period and lacked evidence. The Court held that the arbitrator had completed the proceedings during his tenure and merely finalized the writing post-retirement under court direction. Crucially, the Court found that the appellant participated in the proceedings without objection, thereby impliedly consenting to the arbitrator's authority and the extension of time. The Court affirmed that parties cannot challenge an award on procedural grounds after submitting to the proceedings without protest. The principle laid down is that where parties actively participate in arbitration proceedings without objection, they waive the right to challenge the arbitrator's authority or the expiration of the statutory time limit for the award.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitrator appointed by designation validly issue an award after ceasing to hold the office?
  • Does a party's participation in arbitration proceedings without protest constitute a waiver of the right to object to the arbitrator's authority?
  • Can the time limit for making an arbitration award be extended by the implied consent of the parties?
  • Is an arbitration award invalid solely because the arbitrator did not record formal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Tea House through Proprietor vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Labour Department, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited vs Colony Thal Textile Mills Limited1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ltd. Pakistan vs Claugh1999 MLD 254 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22
  arbitration agreementSection 20 Arbitration Actsufficient causejudicial functionministerial actremandcivil procedurearbitration reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court order directing the appellant to file an original arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether a court may mechanically order the filing of an arbitration agreement without first adjudicating upon the respondent's objections regarding the existence of a bona fide dispute requiring arbitration. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court’s order was legally deficient because it failed to record findings on whether "sufficient cause" existed to decline the filing of the agreement. The Court established that under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court performs a dual function: a judicial function to determine the validity of the agreement and the existence of a dispute, and a subsequent ministerial function of referring the matter to an arbitrator. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case, mandating that the trial court must first judicially determine if the objections raised by the appellant constitute sufficient cause to preclude the arbitration reference.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse the filing of an arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, if sufficient cause is shown?
  • Is an order for filing an arbitration agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a mechanical process or a judicial function requiring the determination of a dispute?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with the notice requirements of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the appeal has already been admitted for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Zainib and another vs Sh. Ghulam Rasool and 10 others1999 YLR 863 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Zainab And Another vs Sheikh Ghulam Rasool And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 162 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Nabi vs Station House Officer, Police Station City, Burewala1999 P Cr. L J 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Farooq and through his real mother1999 MLD 3437 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary1999 YLR 2129 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Etc. vs Special Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1990 Criminal Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Special Judge, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 586 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Muhammad Abid and 2 others1999 YLR 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Nisar Abbas G.M. Zonel Office H.B.F.C. vs Abdul Rashid Khan MemberK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 5 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• News Publication (Pvt.) Ltd. And 4 Others vs National News Agency And Another1999 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ullah Gahi, Advocate and anothers vs The Punjab Local Council1999 MLD 3177 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ullah Gahi, Advocate And Another vs The Punjab LocalK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nazir and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 518 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nazir And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 651 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Aziz AhmadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 379 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Etc. vs Rehmat Ali Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-05Read full judgment →
• Nazim Hussain vs The State and others1999 P Cr. L J 42 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Nazeeruddin and 8 others vs Province of Punjab through District1999 MLD 833 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
• Nazeer-Ud-Din, And Other vs Province of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner, Bhakkar And 2 Other1999 CLC 990 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16
  mutation of inheritancerevenue hierarchyjurisdiction of district collectorland revenuewrit petitioncoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhakkar, whereby a mutation of inheritance sanctioned by a Revenue Officer was declared inoperative upon a direct miscellaneous application, while an appeal against the same mutation was already pending before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner or District Collector possesses the substantive jurisdiction under the law and revenue hierarchy to entertain direct applications to cancel or review mutations sanctioned by Revenue Officers, bypassing the appellate mechanism. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner has no such jurisdiction under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and that appeals against mutation orders lie strictly before the designated appellate authorities in the revenue hierarchy. The Court laid down that a Deputy Commissioner/District Collector cannot usurp the powers of appellate forums or review orders of subordinate Revenue Officers under the guise of general supervisory control, rendering any such direct interference coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner or District Collector have the jurisdiction to entertain a direct application to cancel or review a mutation sanctioned by a Revenue Officer?
  • What is the proper appellate forum against an order of a Revenue Officer sanctioning a mutation under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Can a Deputy Commissioner review an order passed by a subordinate Revenue Officer under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Anwar and 4 others1999 YLR 2464 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain And Another vs The Additional District Judge, Depalpur, District Okara And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 509 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-18Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Ghazanfar Ali Gul vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Revenuedepartment, Board of Revenue, Lahore And Other1999 K.L.R. Civil Cases 176 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawabzada Ghazanfar Ali Gul vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Board Of Revenue, Lahore And 3 Other1999 CLC 430 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09
  territorial demarcationland revenuelocal councilsub-division re-allocationadministrative conveniencejudicial reviewpresumption of regularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging the notifications issued by the Government of the Punjab under section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and sections 6(5) and 7 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, whereby the Tehsil/Sub-Division Sarai Alamgir was detached from District Jhelum and attached to District Gujrat, along with consequential changes in the Zila Councils. The core legal questions involved the legality of altering territorial and administrative limits, the consequential transfer of elected members to new local councils, and whether such executive policy decisions were justiciable. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the Government possesses broad administrative powers under the statutes to vary district and local council limits for administrative convenience, and such decisions enjoy a presumption of regularity. The court laid down that while executive notifications regarding territorial demarcations are subject to judicial review in cases of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fides, they do not require prior consultation, hearings, or recording of reasons unless expressly mandated by statute, and consequential adjustments of local council members follow automatically upon valid administrative re-demarcation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government is empowered to vary the limits of districts and sub-divisions under section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 without recording reasons?
  • Do notifications altering the territorial limits of local councils require a prior hearing or ascertainment of the inhabitants' views?
  • Whether directly elected members of a local council automatically become members of a newly constituted local council upon the re-demarcation of administrative boundaries under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise judicial review over executive policy decisions regarding the creation or re-allocation of administrative districts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs The District Magistrate, Lahore and 3 others1999 MLD 132 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmad Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 63 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-12
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprohibition of Hadd ordercontrol of narcotic substanceslesser punishmentdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a truck in which he was travelling. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on statutory grounds and given that the offence fell under provisions entailing lesser punishment or that the trial was substantially delayed due to transfer of the case. The Lahore High Court held that where an offence is punishable under two different provisions of law, the law entailing lesser punishment should be considered, and given that the petitioner had been detained for over fifteen months without the trial being in sight, his continuous detention was unjustifiable. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without the prospect of a near conclusion of the trial entitles an accused person to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable under two different legal provisions attract the law entailing lesser punishment?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused without the trial being in sight constitutes a ground for grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a petitioner raise a statutory ground for bail before the High Court if it was not initially urged before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nationalized Secondary School vs Government of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Nationalized Secondary School vs Government of Punjab and others1999 MLD 809 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• National Investment Trust Ltd., Karachi vs Al-Qaim Textile Mills Ltd1999 P.C.T.L.R. 776 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Investment Trust Ltd. vs Al Qaim Textile Mills Ltd.1999 CLC 926 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority vs Tariq Khurshid And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Labour Service Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-25Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs The Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist1999 MLD 3363 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin vs Muhammad Bashir and anothers1999 MLD 2999 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 892 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Nasir Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 538 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas and 2 others vs Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Multan and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 57 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
• Naseer Hussain Shah vs The State1999 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State and another1999 YLR 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nasar Iqbal and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 41 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Nasar Din vs Abdul MajeedK.L.R. 1999 Revalue Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Nasar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 629 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
• Nanna T Bibi And Another vs Station House Officer (S.H.O.), PoliceK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 181 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Najam Saqib vs The State and another1999 YLR 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Naila Iqbal vs D.E.O. GujranwalaK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 371 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Naila Azmat vs Judge Family Court and others1999 MLD 3090 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07
  dissolution of marriageKhulawrit petition maintainabilityalternative remedyconditional decreefamily court appealcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a decree of dissolution of marriage granted by a Family Court subject to the condition of payment of Khula consideration. The core legal question was whether such a conditional decree of dissolution is appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby barring a writ petition. The Court held that where a decree of dissolution of marriage is granted subject to conditions, such as the payment of a specific sum as consideration for Khula, the dissolution is not absolute until the condition is fulfilled. Consequently, such a decree does not fall under the bar of Section 14(2)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and is appealable. The Court affirmed that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal before the District Judge. The key principle laid down is that a conditional decree of dissolution of marriage is appealable, and a writ petition is not maintainable when an appellate remedy exists, though the appellate court may consider condoning delay under the Limitation Act, 1908, given the conflicting judicial interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree of dissolution of marriage granted subject to the payment of Khula consideration appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the bar under Section 14(2)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, apply to a conditional decree of dissolution of marriage?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against a decree of dissolution of marriage when an appellate remedy is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 2664 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Nadia Nazir and anothers vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23
  Controlling AuthorityEducational Boardlocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petitionshow-cause noticestatutory powerannulment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the refusal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, to allow the petitioners an extra chance to appear in an Intermediate supplementary examination after they missed an exam due to a vehicle breakdown. Initially, the Controlling Authority directed the Board to grant an extra-special chance on compassionate grounds. However, the Board subsequently withdrew its permission, leading to the filing of the petition. The core legal questions involved the extent of the Controlling Authority's powers under the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, whether prior notice and hearing to the Board are mandatory before issuing such directions, and the applicability of the principle of locus poenitentiae. The Lahore High Court held that any direction by the Controlling Authority to annul Board proceedings or interfere with individual cases must comply with statutory prerequisites, specifically requiring prior notice and a hearing given to the Board through its Chairman. The Court laid down that orders passed without such mandatory hearing are void ab initio, and that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not prevent an authority from retracting an illegal order before a decisive step—such as the actual taking of the examination—has occurred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Controlling Authority have the power under Section 12 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 to direct a Board to grant an extra examination chance to individual students without giving prior notice and hearing to the Board?
  • Is a direction issued by the Controlling Authority without satisfying the statutory prerequisites of notice and hearing considered void in law?
  • At what point does the principle of locus poenitentiae cease to apply regarding the withdrawal of an administrative concession or examination permission by an educational board?
  • Can an educational board validly refuse to implement a directive of the Controlling Authority that suffers from patent illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Taj vs The State1999 MLD 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Alias Deema vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Alam vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar Khan Niazi and another vs Zila Council, Khanewal1999 YLR 685 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-12
  Goods Exit Taxsecurity depositrefund claimscontractual obligationsapprobate and reprobatewrit jurisdictiongovernment instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging the charging of a five percent security deposit and an advance amount for refund claims by Zila Council Khanewal in respect of a lease for the collection of Goods Exit Tax for the period 1998-1999. The petitioners contended that Rule 16(3) of the Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990 limited security deposits to one percent of the bid, rendering any excess or refund claim charges illegal. The Lahore High Court held that the Government of the Punjab had validly issued general instructions enhancing the security deposit to five percent and requiring advance payments for refund claims, which carried the force of law. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioners, having voluntarily participated in the auction, accepted the terms, and executed the bilateral agreement, could not approbate and reprobate by retaining benefits while repudiating burdens, nor could they invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid contractual obligations. The petitions were accordingly dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractor challenge terms of an auction agreement after voluntarily participating and accepting its benefits?
  • Do government instructions enhancing security deposits for tax collection leases possess the force of law?
  • Can writ jurisdiction be invoked to permit a party to avoid contractual obligations?
  • Does the principle of approbate and prevent a party from repudiating burdens while retaining benefits under an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Masih Alias Bahadra vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 553 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh And 4 Others vs Muhammad Bakhsh And 6 Other1999 CLC 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Naazim vs State1999 YLR 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
• M/s.) SH. Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 579 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Navab Sons, Lahore vs The Assistant Commissioner Tax, Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 387 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Ali Leather & Works vs Tax Recovery Officer Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 91 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tahseen (Pvt) Ltd vs Deputy Collector of Customs Dry Port, RawalpindiPTCL 1999 CL. 103 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Syed Bhaies (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab, Excise and1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1328 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Superior Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Etc.PTCL 1999 CL. 827 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Quality Steel Mills. vs CBR & OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 170 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Lucky Traders Through Mukhtar Ahmad, Muhammad HafizK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 134 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Laurels International (Pvt.) Ltd. And Another vs Muslim1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ali & Works vs Tax RecoveryPTCL 1999 CL. 432 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muzammal Shah vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 709 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs Hassan Din and 11 others1999 MLD 709 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali alias Nanna H vs The State1999 MLD 567 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26
  rash and negligent drivingcriminal negligenceburden of proofacquittalappreciation of evidencefatal accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal road accident involving a tractor and a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the essential ingredient of 'rash or negligent driving' to sustain a conviction. The trial court had convicted the appellant primarily based on the high speed of the vehicle and the appellant's subsequent flight from the scene. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable and doubted the complainant's presence at the scene. The Court held that driving at high speed alone does not constitute rash or negligent driving; the prosecution must prove that the driver failed to take proper care or violated traffic rules given the specific road conditions. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that the burden of proof regarding negligence rests squarely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does driving a vehicle at high speed, without further evidence of traffic rule violations or lack of care, constitute 'rash or negligent driving' under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the prosecution's burden of proof to establish rash or negligent driving in a fatal accident case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the testimony of key prosecution witnesses is found to be unreliable and doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs The Chairman, Punjab Labour1999 PLC 19 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain and others vs Mukhtar Ahmad and others1999 MLD 3384 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02
  specific performancesecond appealColonization of Government Lands Actres judicatabona fide purchaserconcurrent findingsagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land allotted under the Gujranawala Oustee Scheme. The primary legal questions concerned the enforceability of the agreement under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the applicability of res judicata regarding a previously withdrawn suit, and the status of the appellant as a bona fide purchaser. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, ruling that agreements to sell such land are enforceable and not barred by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The Court further held that the principle of res judicata was inapplicable because the previous suit was withdrawn with the intent to file a fresh one, as evidenced by the counsel's statement. Additionally, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent evidence of misreading or procedural defect. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the decree for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to sell land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 enforceable despite the restrictions in Section 19?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a suit withdrawn by the plaintiff where the court order did not explicitly grant permission to file a fresh suit but the counsel's statement requested it?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
  • Is a decree for specific performance maintainable if the subsequent sale deed in favour of a third party was not explicitly cancelled in the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Akram, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 582 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad through his Special Attorney Gulzar Ahmad vs Shahid1999 YLR 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain Qadri Gillani and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad And Others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad & 3 Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 105 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad Naz vs Divisional Superintendent, Railways and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan and others vs Naseer Ahmad and others1999 YLR 524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →