Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Rafique vs Ch.Muhammad Ismail1999 MLD 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Amar Shahzad and 4 others1999 YLR 610 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05
  civil revisionsuit for possessionadverse possessionregistered sale deedmutationproperty boundariesrevisional jurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal and decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for possession. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on registered sale-deeds and mutations, whereas the petitioner resisted the suit claiming ownership by adverse possession for over 25 years, limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, and discrepancies in the property's description. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the plaintiffs successfully established title via unchallenged registered documents and proper boundary descriptions. The Court held that adverse possession must be open, overt, and hostile to the true owner's knowledge, and Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 had been declared un-Islamic by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to upset findings of fact absent jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can interfere with findings of fact recorded by an appellate court absent jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity?
  • Whether a lawful owner's title to immovable property can be defeated by a defendant's plea of adverse possession?
  • Which description prevails when there is a conflict between the stated boundaries and the stated area in an instrument conveying land?
  • Whether entries made in the register of the Excise and Taxation Department carry an absolute presumption of genuineness to establish adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Javaid vs Muhammad Khalil and 3 others1999 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1848 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 406 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Cycle vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ghulam Muhyuddin1999 MLD 3211 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafaqat vs The State1999 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and others vs The State1999 MLD 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervez, (Ex-Bursar) Additional Administrative Officer, Township Branch vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division_President, Board of Governors, Divisional Public School, Model Town, Lahore1999 PLC (C.S.) 149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 970 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Mst. Hayatan and 6 others1999 YLR 2693 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Bhatti vs S.H.O., Police Station Ladheywala1999 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer Bhatti vs Station House Officer, Police StationK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 222 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-13
  post-arrest bailmurderocular accountmedical evidencetentative assessmentdelay in trialdiscrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nawaz, who was charged under Section 302, Section 34, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, combined with the significant delay in the commencement of the trial. The Court held that while a deeper appreciation of evidence is generally not warranted at the bail stage, a tentative assessment of the material is permissible. Observing that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over one and a half years without the trial having commenced, and noting discrepancies between the alleged injuries attributed to the petitioner and the medical report, the Court granted the bail. The key principle laid down is that while the court should avoid a deep analysis of evidence at the bail stage, a tentative assessment is necessary to determine if there are reasonable grounds for continued detention, particularly when there is a significant delay in trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tentative assessment of evidence permissible at the bail stage despite the general rule against deeper appreciation of evidence?
  • Does a significant delay in the commencement of a trial constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be granted when there is a discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the injuries attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Azhar And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Aman Ullah And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Mian Muhammad Munir And Other IntraK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Mian Muhammad Munir and 5 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 144 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another vs Mst. Farrah Naz1999 PLD Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15
  specific performancelimitation periodcondonation of delayimmovable propertytime is not of the essencepecuniary jurisdictioncontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a trial court decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The appellants challenged the decree, arguing the respondent failed to perform her obligations despite the vacation of a stay order on the land. The primary legal questions were whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The Court held that the appeal was time-barred, as the appellants failed to explain the delay between the return of the memorandum of appeal by the District Court and its filing in the High Court, and they could not claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, while simultaneously arguing the District Court had jurisdiction. On merits, the Court found the appellants failed to provide evidence of the stay order's vacation or respond to the respondent's reasonable requests for documentation. The Court affirmed the principle that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence, and specific performance cannot be refused solely due to delays in execution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, while simultaneously arguing that the court which returned the appeal lacked jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to explain every day of delay between the return of a memorandum of appeal and its refiling in the correct forum preclude the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property in Pakistan?
  • Can a party refuse specific performance of a contract for the sale of land solely because the sale deed was not executed by the date fixed in the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Baluch vs President of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 4 others1999 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Other vs Allah Bakhsh Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and anothers vs The State and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21
  customs intelligencefirst information reportpolice station definitionsmuggled goodsimport policy orderjurisdiction of customs officersquashing of FIRdry port seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) and the seizure of imported goods at the Dry Port, Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether the Directorate's regional office constitutes a "Police Station" empowered to register F.I.Rs under the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether the imported goods qualified as "smuggled goods" despite not being banned under the contemporary Import Policy, and the demarcation of powers between Officers of Customs and Intelligence Officers. The Lahore High Court held that the Directorate's regional office is not a legally constituted "Police Station" and lacked jurisdiction to register the F.I.R., which was accordingly quashed. The Court further held that goods permitted under the current Import Policy are not "smuggled goods," and that administrative friction between customs collectors and intelligence directorates must be resolved by the Central Board of Revenue. The key principles laid down include that investigative wings cannot independently establish police stations without formal notification by the Provincial Government, and that subsequent import policies override older static notifications regarding banned items.

  Questions settled

  • Can a regional office of the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) independently establish a police station and register a First Information Report?
  • Are goods imported in accordance with the current Import Policy Order considered smuggled goods merely because they were listed as banned under an older notification?
  • Whether intelligence officers possess concurrent jurisdiction to enter a dry port and initiate penal proceedings independently of the local customs collectorate?
  • What is the distinction in status and statutory functions between 'Officers of Customs' and 'Appropriate Officers' under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs The State And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha And 11 Other1999 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz alias Mian vs Azhar and 11 others1999 P Cr. L J 418 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Vicechancellor, University of the Punjab and others1999 MLD 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Vice Chancellor, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 480 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1999 CLC 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05
  election petitionrecount of votesinterim orderwrit jurisdictionsuppression of factsmaintainabilityelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order dated 16th December 1998, passed by an Election Tribunal, which directed a recount of votes in an election petition filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, a returned candidate. The petitioner sought a recount encompassing all candidates, not merely specific ones. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the petitioner's prior unsuccessful writ petition and the suppression of material facts. Upon review, the Court observed that the impugned order was merely an interim procedural step scheduling the matter for arguments on objections, rather than a final adjudication. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against such an interim order. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind election laws does not provide for appeals against interim orders, and allowing constitutional petitions against such interlocutory proceedings would frustrate the expeditious resolution of election disputes. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the spirit of the law discourages judicial interference in pending interim election tribunal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim order passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Does the suppression of facts in a prior writ petition bar the maintainability of a subsequent petition?
  • Can a court interfere with an interim procedural order of an Election Tribunal under its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem and another vs Majeed1999 MLD 2861 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax &1999 PTD 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Abdul Wahid and others1999 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12
  constitutional petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipejectment petitionburden of proofdisputed titlerent controller jurisdictionexcise records
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the Rent Controller’s dismissal of an ejectment petition. The core legal question was whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, given the tenant's denial of such status and their competing claim of ownership over the disputed premises. The High Court held that the Appellate Court erred in finding a tenancy relationship solely based on the landlord's prima facie ownership. The Court determined that the landlord failed to produce a tenancy agreement or evidence of rent payment, rendering the relationship unproven. The Court emphasized that while the landlord established prima facie ownership, this does not automatically create a landlord-tenant relationship. Furthermore, the Court noted that when a genuine dispute regarding title exists, the Rent Controller should not adjudicate the title, but rather the parties should seek resolution in a court of general jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, clarifying that its findings do not prejudice the ongoing civil litigation regarding the property's title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere establishment of prima facie ownership by a landlord automatically prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Is the Rent Controller the appropriate forum to adjudicate a genuine dispute regarding the title of the property?
  • Can a landlord succeed in an ejectment petition without producing a tenancy agreement or evidence of rent payment when the relationship is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29
  post-arrest bailillegal house searchabsconderzina by consentprohibitory clauseconfession before policebail for female accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications seeking post-arrest bail by three petitioners accused under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the police had legal justification to enter a private house under the pretext of arresting an absconder and whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and procedural violations. The Lahore High Court held that the police entry into the house without a warrant, without independent efforts to arrest the absconder, and without following procedural mandates under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was illegal and a transgression of authority. The Court further noted that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, that a confession made to police is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that the female petitioner's case fell within the exception under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The bail applications were accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police can enter a private residence without a warrant under the pretext of searching for an absconder?
  • Does an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 relating to an attempt fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a confession made by an accused person before the police admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether a female accused is entitled to the benefit of the statutory proviso under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Ahmed vs Mian Abdul Qayyum And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Ahmed And Others vs Mian Abdul Qayyum And Other1999 CLC 710 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs Muhammad Ayyub, City Magistrate. Burewala1999 P Cr. L J 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Anwar Etc. vs Islamic University Bahawalpur Etc.k.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and 17 others vs University of Engineering &1999 MLD 587 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi Through Legal Heirs vs Ghulam Yahya Through Legal1999 CLC 1771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaf Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Water and Power Development Authority and 4 others1999 MLD 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Collector Customs And Other1999 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Mst. Umra Bevi1999 CLC 806 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12
  succession certificateGeneral Provident FundnominationinheritanceTarkagroup insurancefamily pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment regarding the distribution of a deceased government employee's terminal benefits, including gratuity, General Provident Fund (G.P. Fund), pension, and group insurance. The core legal question was whether a nominee appointed by the deceased employee is entitled to these benefits to the exclusion of the legal heir, or whether such benefits form part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) distributable under Islamic law. The Court held that while nomination does not override the law of inheritance regarding the G.P. Fund and gratuity, these assets constitute the deceased's estate and must be distributed to the legal heir, in this case, the deceased's sister. However, the Court distinguished group insurance, ruling that it is a grant rather than inheritance, thereby entitling the nominee to receive it. The key principle laid down is that a nomination under the Provident Funds Act or similar service rules does not constitute a will, gift, or trust, but merely a mandate that expires upon the nominator's death, leaving the funds to devolve upon legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nomination of a beneficiary for a General Provident Fund confer absolute ownership upon the nominee to the exclusion of legal heirs?
  • Does a nomination for government employee benefits constitute a valid gift or will under Islamic law?
  • Is group insurance money considered part of the deceased's estate (Tarka) for the purposes of inheritance?
  • Can a nominee receive terminal benefits if they are not a legal heir under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 3302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar And Another vs Kohitex (Private) LimitedK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen vs Station House Officer, Police Station Pindigheb1999 MLD 2565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen vs S.H.O. P.S. Pindigheb District, Attock And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar vs Government of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 582 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaqat vs Saima Sardar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaqat vs Saima Sardar And Another1999 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1999 MLD 3421 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Station House Officer And Other1999 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 3 otherss vs Waris ALI/Plaintiff1999 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1999 YLR 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 91 others vs Additional Commissioner1999 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2032 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran Asghar vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14
  Intermediate ExaminationResult CancellationFraudulent MisrepresentationWrit JurisdictionUnclean HandsAcademic FraudDiscretionary Relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner’s Intermediate Examination result by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan, following the discovery that the petitioner had obtained his marks through systematic suppression of facts regarding his previous examination attempts. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Board’s cancellation order and whether the Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to protect the petitioner’s medical career, given his subsequent completion of medical studies during the pendency of the petition. The Court held that the Board’s action was lawful, as the petitioner had obtained his results through deliberate deception and misrepresentation in his admission forms. Affirming that fraud vitiates academic results, the Court ruled that it would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to aid a petitioner who approached the Court with unclean hands. The Court further established that the passage of time and the petitioner’s subsequent academic progress do not sanctify fraudulent conduct, and sympathy cannot confer jurisdiction where the merits of the case do not support the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief to a petitioner who obtained academic results through fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Does the passage of time or the completion of professional studies during the pendency of litigation validate an academic result obtained through fraudulent means?
  • Is an educational board empowered to cancel an examination result if it is discovered that the candidate suppressed material information regarding previous examination attempts?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem require a show-cause notice in cases where the evidence of academic fraud is documentary and undisputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14
  Shajjah-i-Munaqqilahconfession during trialsentence enhancementDiyat calculationrevisional jurisdictionArshCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge enhancing the petitioner's sentence for an offense under Section 337-A(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, initially convicted by a Magistrate based on a voluntary confession made during trial, contended that the confession was invalid because it was recorded after prosecution evidence had commenced and under oath. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a confession recorded at an advanced trial stage, the propriety of taking such a confession under oath, and the legality of the sentence enhancement by the revisional court. The Lahore High Court held that Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not restrict the timing of a confession, and Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates an oath, validating the conviction. However, the Court found the revisional court's Arsh calculation erroneous and the imprisonment excessive. The Court laid down that Arsh must be calculated based on the Diyat value applicable at the time of the occurrence, and modified the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused on a confession recorded after the commencement of prosecution evidence?
  • Does the administration of an oath to an accused during a confession vitiate the conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the calculation of Arsh in a criminal case based on the Diyat value at the time of the occurrence or the time of judgment?
  • Can a revisional court enhance a sentence of imprisonment and impose Arsh where the trial court failed to award the mandatory legal punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid and others vs The State1999 MLD 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Iffat Zia And Other1999 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Khan And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1999 CLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Das, Etc. vs The Pakistan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 256 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Das (W. Gopal Das) And Another vs The Pakistan1999 CLC 541 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  enemy propertyconstitutional guaranteesfundamental rightsaudi alteram partemvoid orderlimitationproperty ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing the appellants' suit for declaration and possession regarding property allegedly treated as 'enemy property'. The core legal questions involve whether the appellants' property was validly acquired under enemy property laws, whether they were deprived of their property in accordance with law and natural justice, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants were undisputed Pakistani citizens and owners of the property, that the omnibus notification relied upon did not specify the property in question, that no show-cause notice was given violating the principle of audi alteram partem, and that the proposed sale-deed was never registered or matured. The Court ruled that void and without jurisdiction actions create a continuous cause of action, rendering limitation inapplicable. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decreeing the suit in favor of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that a citizen is out of the country deprive them of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can property be validly treated as enemy property under an omnibus notification that does not specify the property in question?
  • Does an order passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice attract the bar of limitation?
  • Whether an unregistered draft sale-deed can pass a valid title to a purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalil vs Salma Rani and anothers1999 MLD 2192 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir, Proprietor Qadeer Brothers vs Executive1999 MLD 788 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09
  limitation periodresiduary articlecomposite contractrecovery of securitybreach of contractsecond appealwork done
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a civil suit for the recovery of a balance amount and security deposit under a composite contract for supplying and fixing street lights. The core legal question was whether the appellant's suit was barred by limitation and which Article of the Limitation Act applied to a composite claim involving the price of goods, work done, and security deposits. The Lahore High Court held that a composite claim comprising the price of articles supplied, work done, and security deposits does not fall under Article 56 of the Limitation Act 1908, but is governed by the residuary Article 115 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court laid down the principle that laws of limitation must be construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff, and where multiple limitation articles could potentially apply, the one providing for a longer period of limitation should be adopted. The appeal was allowed and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a composite suit for the recovery of the price of articles supplied, work done, and security deposits?
  • Does a combination of several claims in one action deprive each claim of its specific character under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • How should provisions of the Limitation Act 1908 be construed when more than one Article is potentially applicable to a lis?
  • What is the starting point of limitation for a suit arising out of a breach of contract where the rescission of the contract was never communicated to the contractor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffer vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2113 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore1999 MLD 2841 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Dr. Muhammad Afzal Mirza And Another1999 CLC 958 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 606 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1999 MLD 526 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and others vs The State1999 YLR 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 711 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs Ahmad Ali, S.I., C.I.A., Faisalabad1999 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Education Officer and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1344 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Bhalwal And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs A.D.B.P., Kabirwala Branch, District Khanewal1999 YLR 2708 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Kaukab vs Kaukab Sultana1999 YLR 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Deputy District Education Officer and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 215 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Vehari And Other1999 CLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan,Kabirwala Branch District Khanewal through A.D.B.P. Kabirwala Branch District Khanewal And Another,1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1184 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Javed and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The State1999 MLD 1994 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1999 MLD 36 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation, L.D.A. Plaza, Lahore through Managing Director and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 548 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and others vs Muhammad and others1999 MLD 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →