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 Ikram alias Pappu vs The State1999 MLD 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Kabeer Ahmad1999 YLR 440 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Additional District Judge, Khanewal1999 CLC 2098 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees and 2 others vs Chairman, Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1025 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees & 2 Other vs Superintending Engineer, Haveli CanalK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrar vs S.H.O. and others1999 MLD 2532 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1999 MLD 3452 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Nazir Ahmad and 5 others1999 MLD 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Khadim Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 706 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Ghulam GhousK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Haleemi alias Abu Abdullah Mohtisib vs The State1999 YLR 533 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Razia Bibi and others1999 MLD 3030 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-19
  civil revisioncompromise decreefraudpower of attorneyframing of issuesrecording of evidenceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil revision against the order of the Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by respondent No. 1 for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground of fraud and lack of a compromise power in the power of attorney, was accepted without framing issues or recording evidence. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. involving serious disputed questions of law and fact can be decided without framing issues and permitting the parties to adduce evidence. The Lahore High Court held that when parties are at issue and serious questions of fact and law are involved, the court must frame issues and allow both sides to lead evidence through cross-examination rather than passing a summary one-sided order. Consequently, the revision was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the application afresh after framing issues and recording evidence within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be decided without framing issues and recording evidence?
  • Is a party alleging fraud in a compromise decree required to prove the same through strong evidence sifted through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Represented By Yasin And Others vs Muhammad1999 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29
  second appealpre-emptiondecision on oathconsent decreeestoppelapprobation and reprobation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question is whether a party who voluntarily agrees to have a suit decided on the basis of a special oath can subsequently resile from that agreement and challenge the resulting decree on grounds such as partial pre-emption or delayed deposit of pre-emption money. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once parties of their own free will adopt a particular mode of decision such as an oath, they are bound by it and are estopped by their conduct from challenging the proceedings or the decree subsequently. The key principle laid down is that a party entering into a solemn agreement for the disposal of a matter cannot turn around and reprobate after the decision has been rendered against them.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who voluntarily agrees to have a suit decided on the basis of a special oath subsequently resile from that agreement?
  • Whether a consent decree based on the statement and oath of parties can be challenged in appeal on questions like partial pre-emption?
  • Does the doctrine of approbation and reprobation prevent a party from challenging a judicial decision reached through a mutually agreed mode of procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Another vs Member (Judicial I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 5 Other1999 CLC 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Subah Sadiq and another1999 YLR 923 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08
  pre-emption suitlimitation periodinterregnum periodTalb-i-Ishhadremand of suitsale of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal (F.A.O.) directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge Multan, whereby the plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of their pre-emption suit was accepted and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision. The core legal questions involved the correctness of the trial court's findings regarding limitation and the fulfillment of the pre-requisites of Talbs for a sale transaction that took place during the interregnum period between 1-8-1986 and 28-3-1990. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions prescribing a four-month limitation period and the requirements of Talbs are not applicable to pre-emption suits relating to sales during the interregnum period, and that the trial court erred in non-suiting the plaintiffs on limitation without framing a specific issue. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellate court's remand order, and established that transactions during the interregnum period are governed by the legal principles applicable to that timeframe rather than subsequent restrictive provisions.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable period of limitation for a pre-emption suit arising from a sale during the interregnum period from 1-8-1986 to 28-3-1990?
  • Whether the requirements of Talb-i-Ishhad apply to a pre-emption suit relating to a sale transaction that occurred prior to the promulgation of Ordinance V of 1990?
  • Can a trial court non-suit a plaintiff on the point of limitation without framing a specific issue and allowing parties to adduce evidence thereon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2032 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs Province of Punjab through Collector1999 MLD 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Health Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 3438 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The Zila Council, Gujranwala through Administrator_Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-27
  quashment of FIRjurisdiction of local policepublic servantAnti-Corruption Establishmentscheduled offencescriminal breach of trustwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered by local police against the petitioners, including public servants, for alleged offenses under sections 379 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the local police possessed the jurisdiction to register and investigate a criminal case involving public servants, or if such authority exclusively vested in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Lahore High Court held that the registration of the F.I.R. by the local police was without lawful authority. Relying on established precedents and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, the Court determined that criminal cases against public servants for scheduled offenses must be registered and investigated solely by the Anti-Corruption Establishment under the orders of competent officers. Consequently, the Court quashed the F.I.R., while granting the authorities liberty to proceed against the accused in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the local police have the jurisdiction to register and investigate a criminal case against a public servant?
  • Are cases against public servants for scheduled offenses required to be registered exclusively with the Anti-Corruption Establishment?
  • Can an F.I.R. registered by local police against a public servant be quashed for lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez alias Feeza vs The State1999 YLR 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs Ch. Muhammad Ashraf through his Legal Heirs and 61999 YLR 350 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1999 YLR 916 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Saleem vs Mst. Rashida Akhtar and others1999 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and others vs Lt.Col. Irfan Haider and others1999 YLR 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz alias Jaji vs State1999 MLD 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehsan vs Shahnaz Bibi and others1999 MLD 3443 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Sher Muhammad1999 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-18
  revision petitionnecessary partybona fide purchaserremand of caseaudi alteram partemdeclaration suitimpleadment of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed by subsequent purchasers who were not made parties to a declaratory suit challenging an earlier sale mutation. The petitioners had purchased the land from the defendant vendee in 1972, whereas the suit was instituted in 1978. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the initial mutation void due to minority and lack of consideration, which finding was upheld by the first appellate court. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings before the High Court on the grounds that they were necessary parties in possession as bona fide purchasers for consideration and were condemned unheard. The High Court considered whether a non-party aggrieved by a decree can directly invoke revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that a person whose rights or interests are adversely affected by a decree, and who was a necessary party left out of the proceedings, is competent to file a revision petition. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and remanded the suit for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who was not a party to the original suit but is aggrieved by the decree can directly file a revision petition in the High Court?
  • Whether a subsequent vendee who purchased the suit property prior to the institution of a suit is a necessary party to the proceedings?
  • What is the effect on a decree when a suit proceeds and is decided in the absence of a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Sh. Faqir Muhammad1999 YLR 2695 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Ali AhmadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 352 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dilshad Khan vs Ch. Arshad Ali, Civil Judge/Election1999 MLD 2874 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Botta vs Khalid MehmoodK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and anothers vs Superintendent of Police, Dera Ghazi1999 PLD Lahore 297 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18
  quashment of FIRZina Ordinancepolice searchconstitutional jurisdictionprivacy of homemala fideprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alleging that the police proceedings were malicious, illegal, and conducted without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the police acted within their statutory powers when conducting a raid on a private residence for alleged Zina without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards. The Court held that the F.I.R. was tainted by mala fides and lacked legal basis. It observed that the police failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which govern search procedures. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the privacy of a home is protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that police cannot conduct searches for persons under the guise of investigating Zina without specific legal authorization. Consequently, the Court declared the proceedings illegal and quashed the F.I.R. in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, underscoring that police powers must be exercised strictly within the bounds of law and Islamic principles.

  Questions settled

  • Can an F.I.R. be quashed by the High Court when the investigation is tainted by malice and procedural violations?
  • Does Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a police officer to search a private house to arrest a person suspected of Zina?
  • Is the privacy of a home protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against arbitrary police searches?
  • What are the mandatory prerequisites for a police officer to conduct a search under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 3175 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 599 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs S.H.O, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem alias Babbi vs The State1999 MLD 542 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Etc. vs Salamat AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Zafar vs Election Tribunal/Senior Civil Judge And 5K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 496 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Shabbir Ahmad alias Billa1999 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O., Police Station Choochak, District Okara1999 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O. Police Station, OkaraK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 635 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others1999 YLR 620 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01
  gift deedilliterate executantburden of proofpartition suitexecution of documentinheritanceMarz-ul-Maute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for partition of property, challenging a gift deed executed by his deceased father in favor of other legal heirs. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the gift deed. In this revision petition, the petitioner contended that the gift deed was invalid due to the donor's illiteracy, lack of independent advice, the document being in English without translation, and the failure to prove its execution. The Court held that when a document is executed by an illiterate person, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary to establish that the executant understood the nature and contents of the transaction. The Court found that the respondents failed to prove that the illiterate donor, who was suffering from cancer, understood the document or that it was explained to him. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding that mere signatures do not constitute valid execution for an illiterate person without proof of comprehension. The plea of Marz-ul-Maute was rejected due to insufficient evidence of imminent apprehension of death.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere appendage of a signature on a document by an illiterate person constitute valid execution in law?
  • What is the burden of proof on a beneficiary when an illiterate person executes a document excluding a legal heir?
  • Is a document executed by an illiterate person valid if it is not proven that the contents were explained and understood by the executant?
  • Does the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maute apply if the donor dies twenty days after the execution of a gift deed without evidence of imminent apprehension of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Jahan KhanK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Chand Khan1999 MLD 3407 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Commerce, Ministry Of Commerce, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad And 11 Other1999 CLC 1837 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan And 11 Other1999 CLC 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Senior Civil Judge, GUJRATAnd 21999 CLC 1113 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Tiwana vs Syed Shaukat,Hus$Ain Rizvi And 6 Other1999 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17
  recovery suitmoney lendingtrade agreementlimitation periodreview petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple connected constitutional petitions arising from concurrent decisions of the lower courts in three recovery suits filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner and other directors of a private company for the recovery of invested amounts. The core legal questions involved whether the transactions constituted unlicensed money-lending under the West Pakistan Money-Lenders' Ordinance, 1960, whether the suits were barred by limitation, and whether the civil courts lacked jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the agreements between the parties were private business contracts for company promotion and trade rather than commercial money-lending, that the limitation period was validly extended by the renewal of the agreements, and that the lower courts rightly decreed the suits and dismissed the review and revision petitions. The key principles laid down are that a private business investment contract does not constitute money-lending requiring a license under the West Pakistan Money-Lenders' Ordinance, 1960, and that parties who actively enter into such commercial agreements cannot subsequently turn around and plead that the transaction is barred as money-lending.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private business investment contract between individuals and a company constitutes money-lending requiring a license under the West Pakistan Money-Lenders' Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the renewal of an agreement extend the period of limitation for filing a recovery suit?
  • Can a party to a commercial agreement subsequently claim that the transaction is barred as an unlicensed money-lending transaction?
  • What is the scope of interference in a review petition under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 539 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 227 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs State1999 YLR 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif alias Khalid and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 55 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06
  post-arrest bailconflict between medical and ocular evidencefurther inquirySection 497 CrPCmurder casecross-version case
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was armed with a .222 rifle and fired at the deceased, inflicting a specific injury. The core legal question was whether a clear conflict between the ocular account in the FIR and the medical evidence (post-mortem report and diagram) rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that the FIR assigned specific injuries that conflicted with the exit wounds documented in the medical record. Holding that the conflict between ocular and medical evidence justified further inquiry, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between the ocular account in an FIR and medical evidence entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether the existence of a conflict between the post-mortem report and the FIR version makes a case one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Rafiq Alias Noni And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Adil Zaidi and 4 others1999 MLD 3312 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03
  ejectment petitionpersonal needlandlord and tenantfixed-term tenancyco-landlordrent restrictionsummary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a rent matter where the tenant challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering his ejectment from a shop on grounds of personal need. The appellant contended that the landlords failed to disclose other vacant properties, that the ejectment petition was incompetent due to the non-joinder of all legal heirs of the original owner, and that an advance payment of Rs. 20,000 created a fixed-term tenancy, shielding him from eviction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a landlord is the sole judge of their own requirements and is not obligated to disclose other properties in an ejectment petition. The Court affirmed that proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, are summary in nature and do not require the strict pleadings of a civil suit. Furthermore, the Court ruled that one co-landlord is competent to maintain an ejectment petition. Finally, the Court found no evidence that the alleged advance payment created a fixed-term tenancy, noting that security deposits do not confer immunity from ejectment under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord legally obligated to disclose all other properties owned by them in an ejectment petition?
  • Can a single co-landlord maintain an ejectment petition against a tenant without joining all other legal heirs?
  • Does the payment of a security deposit by a tenant convert a tenancy into a fixed-term tenancy under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is the landlord the sole judge of the suitability of premises for their own personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Shamo Mai and 2 others1999 YLR 670 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs State1999 YLR 2125 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And 6 Others vs Muhammad Inayat.1999 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs State1999 YLR 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Ali and others vs Commissioner, Social Security, Punjab and 2 others1999 YLR 463 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 600 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 535 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asaf, Advocate vs Mehboob Ali Khan Sherwani1999 P Cr. L J 436 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs S.S.P. and others1999 MLD 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Punjab Election Authority, Lahore and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10
  local council electionfresh pollpolling stationballot boxeselection authorityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the Punjab Election Authority directing a fresh poll at certain polling stations for a Local Council Election. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority could lawfully order a fresh poll under Rule 28 of the Punjab Local Council (Elections) Rules, 1979, where the results of the polling stations in question had already been successfully ascertained and compiled, and without the mandatory report from the Returning Officer. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was issued without lawful authority, as the preconditions under Rule 28(2) were not satisfied. The ratio decidendi is that a fresh poll cannot be ordered under Rule 28 unless the result of the poll at that specific polling station cannot be ascertained due to an interruption, removal, or destruction of ballot boxes, and a report has been made by the Returning Officer, and further that the results referred to in the rule pertain to the particular polling station and not the final election return.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the Election Authority order a fresh poll under Rule 28 of the Punjab Local Council (Elections) Rules, 1979?
  • Does the unlawful removal of ballot boxes alone automatically constitute a ground to order a fresh poll without considering its effect on ascertaining the result?
  • Whether the term result in Rule 28 of the Punjab Local Council (Elections) Rules, 1979, refers to the result of a particular polling station or the final return of the whole election?
  • Is a report from the Returning Officer a necessary prerequisite for the Election Authority to declare a poll void and direct a fresh poll?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through ViceChancellor and 3 others1999 YLR 968 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17
  university admissionage limitequality clausereasonable classificationconstitutional petitionprospectus regulationsultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the refusal of admission to the petitioner by Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University on the ground of exceeding the maximum prescribed age limit of 24 years. The core legal question was whether prescribing an upper age limit for university admissions violates the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether such admission regulations are ultra vires. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the university is statutorily empowered under the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act 1975 to frame regulations and set criteria, including age limits, for screening applicants reasonably. The court established that classification based on age grouping is permissible, reasonable, and does not offend the equality clause, as different age groups can be subjected to distinct legal standards and policies. Furthermore, universities possess independent charters to regulate admissions according to their local framework without requiring uniformity across all provincial institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prescription of a maximum age limit for admission to university courses violates the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a university have the statutory power under the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act 1975 to formulate admission criteria and fix age limits?
  • Can admission regulations of a university be struck down merely because other universities in the province do not prescribe similar age limits?
  • Whether an applicant's right to admission is governed by the prospectus and regulations prevailing in the current academic session?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Station House Officer, Police Station1999 P Cr. L J 1843 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs State1999 MLD 2271 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Hussain vs The State1999 MLD 939 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ar1f Patwari vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar, Subinspector, Railway Police, Lahore vs Station1999 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-24
  second FIRcounter versioncognizable offenceregistration of casewrit petitionpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case based on an application detailing the murder of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and serious injuries sustained by a constable within a police post during an alleged attack by a mob. The core legal question was whether a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) can be registered regarding the same incident when an F.I.R. has already been recorded by the opposite party. The Lahore High Court held that while ordinarily a second F.I.R. for the same incident is not recorded, an exception applies where a counter-version discloses a distinct and separate cognizable offence with diametrically opposed details that constitute a substantive grievance rather than a mere defense. The Court ruled that refusing to register a counter-F.I.R. in such circumstances would cause a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that when two distinct, conflicting versions of an incident disclose independent cognizable offences, separate F.I.R.s must be registered and investigated so that both versions can be placed before the trial court for proper adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second F.I.R. can be registered in respect of the same incident when a previous F.I.R. has already been recorded?
  • Does a counter-version disclosing a distinct and separate cognizable offence warrant the registration of a separate F.I.R.?
  • Can the police refuse to register a case on the ground that they consider the presented version to be false?
  • Is it incumbent upon the investigating agency to place conflicting versions of an incident before the trial court for proper adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Javed vs Muhammad Sarwar1999 YLR 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar And Others vs Administrator Town Committee1999 P.C.T.L.R.1189 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar and 2 others vs Administrator, Town Committee, I_Abirwala, District Khanewal and 4 others1999 YLR 950 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and anothers vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and 2 others1999 MLD 2612 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Butt vs Abdul Razzak1999 YLR 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Mamand vs The State1999 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 496 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Raheela Aslam and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17
  Family Courtinterlocutory orderappealabilitydecisiondecreeejusdem generisdefence struck off
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises out of a pending family suit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, wherein the petitioner's defence was struck off by the Family Court and an appeal against the said interlocutory order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the ground of non-maintainability. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court amounts to a 'decision' under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and is consequently appealable. The Court held that the word 'decision' in Section 14 must be read ejusdem generis with the word 'decree' and is restricted to final orders, thereby rendering an appeal against an interlocutory order incompetent. The key principle laid down is that interlocutory orders of Family Courts are not independently appealable under Section 14, but any interim order can be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court is appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the word 'decision' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 cover interim orders?
  • Can an interlocutory order of a Family Court be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs (Mst.) Raheela Aslam And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Tahir vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases l2 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt And Another vs National Bank of Pakistan1999 CLC 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs S.H.O., And Other1999 CLC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Other vs Habib Ullah Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 218 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and 2 others1999 MLD 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →