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 Akhtar vs The State1999 YLR 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Hussain alias Akhtari and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 313 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and others vs The State1999 YLR 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore1999 CLC 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-06
  electricity disconnectionstatutory depositspecial law vs general lawWAPDAremand ordercivil revisionElectricity Act 1910
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute regarding the disconnection of an electricity tube-well connection by WAPDA due to alleged outstanding dues. The petitioner challenged the demands and the subsequent order of the Advisory Board, which had overturned an Electric Inspector's finding in his favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court remanded the case, conditioning the remand on the petitioner depositing the disputed amount. The core legal question was whether the First Appellate Court could lawfully impose a condition requiring the deposit of disputed electricity charges as a prerequisite for the suit's continuation. The Court held that under the Electricity Act, 1910, specifically Section 54-C, a plaintiff is statutorily required to deposit the assessed amount to prevent the disconnection of energy supply. The Court affirmed the principle that special laws exclude general laws. Consequently, the Court upheld the requirement to deposit the disputed amount but modified the order to mandate that the funds be deposited in the trial court rather than directly with the respondent, ensuring the petitioner retains entitlement to any accrued profits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Electricity Act 1910 require a plaintiff to deposit disputed electricity charges in court to maintain a suit against a licensee?
  • Can an appellate court impose a condition of depositing disputed amounts as a prerequisite for remanding a suit for trial on merits?
  • Does the principle that special law excludes general law apply to disputes arising under the Electricity Act 1910?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Mst. Fehmida Kishwar1999 CLC 707 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Anjuman-E-Ghulaman RasoolK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Tariq Mehmood and others1999 MLD 3430 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Niaz Ahmad and anothers1999 MLD 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs D.I.G. Police, Dera Ghazi Khan and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs S.H.O. and others1999 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdiction of Special Courtscheduled offencenexus with terrorismconstitutional petitionabductionmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to take cognizance of a criminal case registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction of a married woman. The core legal question was whether an ordinary penal offence merely listed in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, becomes exclusively triable by a Special Court without establishing a nexus with the objects of terrorism as defined under sections 6, 7, and 8 of the said Act. The Court held that an offence falling under ordinary penal laws cannot be treated as a terrorist act unless it is coupled with the specific intent, mens rea, and objectives envisaged under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan. The key principle laid down is that a clear distinction must be maintained between a run-of-the-mill crime and a terrorist act, and unless an alleged offence strictly falls within the letter and spirit of the special anti-terrorism legislation, special forums lack the jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a penal offence merely because of finding mention in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, become a scheduled offence triable exclusively by a Special Court?
  • Is it necessary for an offence under ordinary penal law to have a nexus with the objects enumerated in sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to constitute a terrorist act?
  • Can a vague allegation regarding the display of a firearm convert an ordinary case of abduction into a terrorist act?
  • Whether a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, has the lawful authority to take cognizance of a run-of-the-mill crime lacking terrorist intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and another vs Muhammad Amin and 6 others1999 YLR 2593 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 21 others vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate1999 YLR 752 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Crimianl Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mubassar Hussain Cheema vs Nasrullah Khan and others1999 MLD 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir alias Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmed alias Bashari vs The State1999 MLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali Akhtar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Feroze Din And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 343 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Feroze Din and 2 others1999 MLD 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda through General Attorney vs Faqir Muhammad1999 YLR 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Begum vs Muhammad Zaheer1999 CLC 917 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-11
  ejectment petitiontentative rent assessmentdefault in payment of rentstriking off defenceRent ControllerPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinanceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which set aside an ejectment order and remanded the case to the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether a Rent Controller must conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence before directing a tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether such an order is invalid if passed concurrently with the framing of issues. The High Court held that the Rent Controller is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence for a tentative rent assessment, as such determination is provisional and subject to final adjudication. The Court established that the Rent Controller must make a tentative assessment based on available material, and the tenant is bound to comply to avoid penal consequences. Furthermore, the timing of the rent deposit order relative to the framing of issues does not vitiate the order. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence before passing an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the simultaneous passing of an order for the deposit of rent and the framing of issues vitiate the Rent Controller's order?
  • Is a tentative determination of rent by a Rent Controller subject to final adjudication at the conclusion of the proceedings?
  • Can a tenant challenge an order for the deposit of rent solely on the grounds that the amount of arrears or the rate of rent is excessive?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khanum vs Muhammad Irshad Hussain and 2 others1999 YLR 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra vs The State1999 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Begum vs Muhammad Hussain1999 MLD 230 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Kausar vs Deputy District Education Officer (W), Sahiwal1999 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum through Legal Heirs vs Niaz Ahmad1999 MLD 3156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-27
  Irrevocable power of attorneyAgency coupled with interestSpecific performanceMoulding of reliefContractual agencyDeclaration suitMultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for declaration filed by the respondent. The respondent sought to establish the subsistence of an irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the petitioner, arguing it was granted for consideration and created a beneficial interest in the subject property. The petitioner contended that the power of attorney was revocable and the suit was not maintainable in its present form. The Court held that under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, an agency coupled with an interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent. Since the evidence established that the respondent had a beneficial interest, the power of attorney was irrevocable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it possesses the discretion to mould relief according to changed circumstances to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the respondent was granted additional relief of specific performance, subject to the payment of requisite court fees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal unilaterally revoke a power of attorney when the agent has a beneficial interest in the subject matter of the agency?
  • Does Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 preclude the revocation of an agency where the agent has an interest in the property?
  • Does a court have the authority to mould relief based on changed circumstances to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable where the plaintiff seeks to establish the subsistence of an irrevocable power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Mufti vs Commissioner, Bahawalpur, and anothers1999 MLD 2872 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. UN Ay Kalsoom vs Superintendent of Police.Vehari and 6 others1999 YLR 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umtul Jamil alias Fakhra vs District Magistrate/Deputy1999 MLD 2280 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasneem Kausar vs House Building Finance Corporation through District Manager, Kasur and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tabassam Bibi vs Abdur Rashid Khan And 2 Other1999 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · -
  inheritanceMuslim Family Lawspre-deceased sonsuccessioncivil revisionIslamic law of inheritanceresiduaries
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land belonging to the late Mst. Ummat Bibi, who died in 1973. The petitioner, a granddaughter of the deceased through a pre-deceased son, claimed the entire estate, while the respondents, brothers of the deceased, claimed a share as residuaries. The core legal question was whether Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, entitles the child of a pre-deceased son to inherit the entire share that the father would have inherited, or if it merely entitles them to the share the father would have received, without excluding other legal heirs. The Lahore High Court, relying on the principle established in Mst. Zainab v. Kamal Khan alias Kamala (PLD 1990 SC 1051), held that Section 4 does not exclude other legal heirs of the prepositus. The court affirmed that grandchildren inherit only the share their parent would have received, and this provision cannot be interpreted to deprive other rightful heirs of their inheritance under Islamic law. The revision petition was dismissed as the lower appellate court's decision was found to be legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 entitle the child of a pre-deceased son to the entire share of the deceased grandparent, or only the share the pre-deceased parent would have inherited?
  • Can Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 be interpreted to exclude other legal heirs of the deceased from their share of inheritance?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with findings of fact or law in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Parveen vs Muhammad Akram1999 CLC 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Toba Tek Singh1999 MLD 3373 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Abdul Rauf Dogar, D.S.P., C.I.A. Cantt., Qila1999 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29
  private complaintnon-prosecutiondismissal in defaultreview jurisdictionsanction for prosecutionpublic servantCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the order of the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, dismissing a private complaint for non-prosecution. The petitioner had filed three successive complaints against public servants, all dismissed for default. The core legal questions were whether a trial court can review or restore a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution and whether sanction under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is required for public servants for offenses post-dating 30-6-1992. The Court held that a dismissal for non-prosecution does not constitute a "judgment" on merits under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and thus does not bar the trial court from reviewing or restoring the complaint. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that sanction under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is not required for offenses committed by public servants after 30-6-1992, rendering the initial dismissal for want of sanction a nullity. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to restore the initial complaint to its file and proceed in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a private complaint for non-prosecution constitute a judgment within the meaning of Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court competent to review and restore a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is sanction under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, required for the prosecution of a public servant for an offense committed after 30-6-1992?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bibi vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Nadeem and anothers vs S.H .0., Police Station Sadar, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal and others1999 MLD 3092 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shagufta Noreen vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat Bano vs I.G. and others1999 YLR 2705 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sanobar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 708 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Kausar vs Fateh Muhammad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salaman vs Khair Din1999 YLR 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi and 5 others vs Mst. Bivi and 4 others1999 YLR 2006 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Parveen vs S.H.O., Police Station, Nekapura, District Sialkot1999 PLD Lahore 406 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Said Bibi and 12 others vs Abdul Ghani1999 YLR 2706 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saghiran Bibi vs The State1999 YLR 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Wazir vs Station House Officer, Police Station Model1999 YLR 378 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Bibi vs The Government of the Punjab and others1999 P Cr. L J 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqqia Bibi vs Muhammad Munir and 2 others1999 MLD 812 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan1 and anothers vs Consolidation Officer and 5 others1999 YLR 2702 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28
  minor litigantnext friendwithdrawal of suitres judicatabest interest of minorguardian ad litemCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for possession of land, which was dismissed by the lower courts on the grounds of res judicata following the withdrawal of a previous suit by the appellants. The central legal question was whether a suit withdrawn by a next friend on behalf of a minor, without the court explicitly determining if such withdrawal was in the minor's best interest, precludes the minor from filing a subsequent suit. The High Court held that courts act as the ultimate guardian of minors and possess a mandatory obligation to ensure that any withdrawal of a suit involving a minor is demonstrably beneficial to them. The Court rejected the lower courts' view that a withdrawal simpliciter under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, bypasses the protective requirements of Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the minor appellant was not barred from re-litigating, as the previous withdrawal lacked judicial scrutiny regarding his interests. However, the adult appellant, having voluntarily abandoned her claim, remained barred. The matter was remanded for further adjudication regarding the minor's claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a suit by a next friend on behalf of a minor without court approval bar a subsequent suit by the minor?
  • Is a court required to determine if the withdrawal of a suit is in the best interest of a minor litigant?
  • Does the withdrawal of a suit simpliciter by a next friend attract the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riaz Bibi:' vs Additional District Judge, Multan and others1999 YLR 875 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03
  Khuladissolution of marriageres judicataconstitutional petitionfamily lawhate and aversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula was dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether the withdrawal of a prior suit for dissolution of marriage operates as res judicata against a subsequent suit, and whether the courts below erred in ignoring the wife's categorical statement regarding extreme hatred and aversion rendering it impossible to live with the husband. The Lahore High Court held that the cause of action in matrimonial matters seeking Khula is of a recurring nature, meaning the principle of res judicata does not apply, and that forcing a woman into a hateful union is contrary to law when she has established a case for Khula. The petition was accepted, setting aside the impugned judgments and dissolving the marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies to a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula following the withdrawal of a previous suit?
  • Is a wife entitled to dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula when she establishes a fixed aversion and extreme hatred making it impossible to live with her husband?
  • Can the High Court examine the appraisal of evidence in constitutional proceedings under Article 199 when reviewing concurrent findings regarding Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Sultana alias Gogi Butt vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs S.H.O., P.S. City, Arifwala and others1999 YLR 173 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahat Moghal vs Mst. Zaheera Badar and 3 others1999 YLR 380 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Perveen Akhtar. vs Sh. Muhammad Jameel and anothers1999 MLD 1786 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Perveen Akhtar vs Muhammad Ali1999 MLD 3401 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pathani vs Ramzan and others1999 MLD 3374 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Nazir vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy1999 MLD 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Kausar alias Nighat Yahyah vs Mushtaq Ahmed and 2 others1999 YLR 407 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naushaba vs Khalil Ahmad Rabbani1999 P Cr. L J 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Bibi and 2 others vs Tayyab Mahmood and 7 others1999 MLD 3342 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Bibi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naeema vs Noor Ali And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naeema Begum vs Iqbal Ali Khan And Other1999 CLC 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Rant vs Muhammad Fazil1999 CLC 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz and others vs The State1999 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsooda Begum vs Hamid Mahmood Butt1999 CLC 391 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08
  rent restrictiondefault in rentejectmentburden of proofexpired tenancy agreementsecond appeallandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which ordered the eviction of the appellants on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question concerned whether the tenants were in default and whether the payment timelines stipulated in an expired tenancy agreement remained binding. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction order. It held that the terms of an expired tenancy agreement, provided they are not repugnant to the governing rent law, continue to operate. Consequently, the tenant remains bound to pay rent according to the original schedule. The Court further established that while the initial burden of proving default lies with the landlord, once the landlord denies receipt of rent on oath, the burden shifts to the tenant to affirmatively prove that rent was paid or tendered. As the appellants failed to substantiate their claim of regular payment, the eviction order was maintained, and the appellants were directed to vacate the premises within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Does an expired tenancy agreement continue to govern the relationship between landlord and tenant?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a landlord denies receipt of rent on oath?
  • Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they fail to prove the payment of rent for successive months?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzoor Mai vs Station House Officer, Shujabad and others1999 MLD 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majeedan and 4 others vs Manzoor Ahmad and 2 others1999 YLR 2436 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahpara vs S. Arshad Mahmood And Another1999 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar B1B1 vs The State1999 YLR 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum through Special Attorney vs Majeed Ahmed Khan1999 MLD 3453 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum And 6 Others vs Tariq Rashid Mahbubi And Another1999 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khalida Bari vs Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 51 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Khatoon vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 3169 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Sughra vs Lt.Col. Ghulam Mustafa1999 YLR 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Begum vs Ahmad Raza Bukhari1999 PLD Lahore 231 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19
  certified copiespublic documentscopying agencysettlement recordsprimary evidenceinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under section 151 of C.P.C. filed before the Lahore High Court sought directions to the court's copying agency to issue certified copies of certified copies of certain settlement orders appended to a constitutional petition dismissed in 1965. The core legal question was whether the High Court's copying agency is legally mandated or empowered under Articles 85, 87, and 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to issue certified copies of documents belonging to the Settlement Department that were filed along with a judicial writ petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the High Court is not the custodian of Settlement Department records, its functionaries have no duty or nexus to maintain such records, and its copying agency cannot issue certified copies of documents originating from another department. The key principle laid down is that public documents under Article 85 must be in the custody of the relevant public functionary and open to inspection before certified copies can be demanded under Article 87.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the copying agency of the High Court can issue certified copies of documents belonging to the Settlement Department that were annexed to a judicial writ petition?
  • Do records of the Settlement Department constitute public documents in the custody of the High Court under Article 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can a person demand certified copies of public documents from a public functionary who does not have legal custody of or statutory responsibility to maintain those documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The State1999 YLR 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 381d · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamian vs Muhammad Bashir and 2 others1999 YLR 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jaina vs Mst. Zohra Bibi and 12 others1999 MLD 2302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irfana Tasneem vs Station House Officer and others1999 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Akhtar vs Deputy Education Officer (W),1999 CLC 1904 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Bibi vs Muhammad Khalil And 3 Other1999 CLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humaira Noorani vs Administrator, M.C., 3Uranwala and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humaira Mehmood vs The State and others1999 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11
  quashment of FIRmala fide investigationpre-arrest bailcontempt of courtHudood lawssui jurisNikah validityconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns writ petitions filed for the production of Mst. Humaira and the quashment of F.I.R. No. 601 of 1998, registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, alleging abduction. The core legal questions involved whether the criminal proceedings were initiated mala fide, whether the alleged abduction occurred, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of conflicting Nikahnamas. The Court held that the F.I.R. was a product of mala fides, as the investigation was biased, the abduction story was false, and the police acted to facilitate private interests. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings. It also convicted the investigating officer for contempt of court for arresting the petitioner despite existing pre-arrest bail. The judgment establishes that a sui juris woman has the right to contract marriage freely, and a marriage without consent is void. Furthermore, the High Court possesses constitutional authority to quash criminal proceedings where the investigation is mala fide, without jurisdiction, or demonstrates a clear abuse of process by state functionaries.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction if the investigation is found to be mala fide?
  • Does a sui juris woman have the right to contract a marriage of her own free will without the consent of her guardians?
  • Is a marriage contracted without the free consent of the parties valid under Islamic law?
  • Can a police officer be held in contempt of court for arresting an accused person who has been granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hidayat Khatoon vs The State and 7 others1999 P Cr. L J 473 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hapeezen vs Rana Zaheeruddin and another1999 YLR 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05
  Section 12(2) CPCspecific performanceexecution of decreeframing of issuescivil revisionfraud and misrepresentationmala fide application
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing an objection petition and an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the disputed property through a gift deed executed by her husband prior to a decree for specific performance obtained against him. The core legal question was whether a court is mandatorily required to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the concurrent findings could be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that a court is not bound to frame issues or conduct a full trial in every Section 12(2) application, particularly when the application is found to be mala fide, time-barred, and filed belatedly simply to frustrate the execution of a lawful decree. The key principle laid down is that where an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lacks bona fides and is aimed at protracting proceedings, the court may dismiss it summarily without framing issues or recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a court to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court summarily dismiss an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is found to be mala fide and intended to protract execution proceedings?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a Section 12(2) application can be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of material irregularity?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 liable to be dismissed as time-barred if filed after prolonged silence and finalization of litigation up to the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Hanjarwal, District Lahore and 5 others1999 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Nizam vs Municipal Committee, Murree Through Administrator, Municipal Committee, Murree And 4 Other1999 CLC 170 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Wali Muhammad1999 MLD 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10
  tamleekgiftMuhammadan Lawrevocation of giftdelivery of possessioncivil revisioninheritanceestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court's judgment that reversed a trial court's decree regarding the validity of a tamleek (gift) of agricultural land made by a father to his daughter. The core legal question was whether the gift was valid, complete, and irrevocable under Islamic law, specifically considering the donor's claim of fraud and non-delivery of possession. The High Court held that the gift was valid, complete, and irrevocable. The court found that the donor had voluntarily transferred the property, and the delivery of possession was established through revenue records and the donor's own admissions. The court laid down the principle that under Muhammadan Law, a gift made by a father to his daughter is irrevocable once possession is delivered, as the donee is within the prohibited degrees of relationship. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a Muslim owner possesses the unfettered right to gift property to one heir to the exclusion of others, and a donor is estopped from challenging a gift's validity based on non-delivery of possession after having admitted to such delivery before revenue authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift made by a father to his daughter irrevocable under Muhammadan Law once possession is delivered?
  • Does a Muslim owner have the legal right to gift property to one heir to the exclusion of other prospective heirs?
  • Is a donor estopped from challenging the validity of a gift on the grounds of non-delivery of possession after having admitted to such delivery before a revenue officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleem Khatoon vs Sultan Bibi And Other1999 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Shaheen vs Government of Punjab1999 PLC (C.S.) 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Aziz vs S.H.O. and others1999 YLR 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia Naureen vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi and 8 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others1999 YLR 144 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fateh vs Khair Muhammad and 3 others1999 YLR 2576 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →