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.

• Ejaz Ahmad vs Mst. Hameed Fatima and 3 others1999 YLR 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Alias Gandhi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah vs The Zila Council, Gujranwala and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 190 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18
  service terminationillegal appointmentselection committeerecruitment committeevested rightprobation periodconstitutional jurisdictionlocal council
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of writ petitions challenging the termination of services of employees, including gunmen, naib-qasids, vaccinators, and dispensers, who were appointed in various local councils in 1995. The core legal questions involve the validity of appointments made by a 'Recruitment Committee' instead of the statutory 'Selection Committee' under the local government framework, whether such irregular appointments create a vested right, and if the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to protect illegal appointments. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made by an unauthorized committee usurping the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee are void ab initio and do not create any vested right or basis for promissory estoppel. The Court ruled that illegalities cannot be perpetuated through constitutional petitions and authorities have the inherent power to rectify illegal orders and terminate services during the extended probation period without a stigma. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will decline relief in its constitutional jurisdiction where granting it would protect illegal benefits or perpetuate administrative illegalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made by a Recruitment Committee instead of the statutory Selection Committee under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance are legal?
  • Does an irregular or illegal appointment create a vested right or attract the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  • Can the services of a probationer be dispensed with without a stigma when the foundational appointment order is declared illegal?
  • Whether the High Court should issue a writ in its constitutional jurisdiction to protect illegal and irregular appointments from being corrected?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• East West Trading and others vs Emirates Bank International and others1999 MLD 3402 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Duray Shahwar Nayyar vs Ladies Staff Officer, P.I.A. and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahida Nasreen, Additional Medical Superintendent, Services1999 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02
  re-evaluation of scriptsUniversity of the Punjabstatutory interpretationvested rightretrospective operationconstitutional petitionscrutiny vs evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the refusal of the University of the Punjab to conduct re-evaluation of examination scripts following the deletion of Regulation 23(b). The core questions were whether the University retains the power to re-evaluate scripts under Section 15(4)(v) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, despite the deletion of the specific regulation, and whether the deletion notification could be applied retrospectively to examinations held before the amendment. The Court held that the power to 'scrutinize' papers under the Act is distinct from 'evaluation,' and the Act does not confer an inherent power of re-evaluation. The deletion of Regulation 23(b) was a valid exercise of authority, and the Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the University. Furthermore, the Court determined that candidates possess no vested right to re-evaluation, and the amended regulation applies to results declared after its enactment, rejecting claims of retrospective application. The Court affirmed that while statutory re-evaluation powers may be absent, inherent powers exist to redress manifest fraud or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to make arrangements for the scrutiny of papers under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 include the power of re-evaluation?
  • Can a university regulation regarding re-evaluation be deleted without violating the parent statute?
  • Does a student have a vested right to have their examination scripts re-evaluated under the regulations in force at the time of the examination?
  • Is the deletion of a regulation regarding re-evaluation applicable to results declared after the date of the amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Ahmad and 3 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and 6 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04
  medical teaching postsinitial recruitmentservice rules interpretationpublic service commissiondiscretion of public authoritytransparency in selectionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two writ petitions challenging the non-selection of the petitioners to the posts of Senior Registrars (Orthopaedic Surgery) and Assistant Professor (Orthopaedic Surgeon) by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal questions involved whether candidates possessing specialized qualifications in a specific medical discipline under category (i) of the relevant rules must be legally preferred over candidates having general qualifications with three years of practical experience under category (ii), and whether the selection process lacked transparency and reasonableness due to an absence of recorded reasons for non-selection. The Lahore High Court held that the relevant provisions of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 place both categories of candidates at par, and in the absence of explicit statutory language mandating preference, the court cannot rewrite the rules or assume the role of the law-maker. Furthermore, the court held that transparency does not require administrative bodies to provide elaborate individual reasons to every unsuccessful candidate absent any initial material demonstrating mala fides or arbitrariness. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates possessing specialized qualifications under category (i) of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 are entitled to preference over candidates under category (ii)?
  • Can the High Court interpret a service rule to grant preference to one category of candidates over another when the statute or rules contain no such express provision?
  • Does the principle of transparency oblige a public service commission to furnish elaborate reasons to every unsuccessful candidate for non-selection in the absence of mala fides?
  • Whether the High Court can conduct a roving and fishing inquiry into the evaluation of candidates by the public service commission under writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Afzal Beg vs University of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 60 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20
  quo warrantoVice-Chancellor appointmentseniority listmisrepresentationdiscretionary powersconstitutional petitionmaster and servant principle
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the notification appointing respondent No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab through a constitutional petition. The core legal questions involved whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable against such an appointment, whether the appointment was vitiated due to incorrect and misleading facts placed before the Chancellor regarding seniority, and whether discretion in making such appointments is subject to judicial review. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner had no vested right to promotion and personal relief could not be granted, a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge public appointments made in violation of law or based on misrepresentation. The Court ruled that fraud and misrepresentation vitiate solemn acts and that the summary submitted to the Chancellor reflected incorrect facts regarding the seniority of the appointees. Consequently, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 3 without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that executive discretion in making appointments must be exercised transparently, and appointments secured through misleading summaries or suppression of correct material facts are liable to be struck down under quo warranto.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor when the rules are non-statutory?
  • Does the submission of an incorrect and misleading summary to the appointing authority vitiate an appointment?
  • Whether the Chancellor's discretion in appointing a Vice-Chancellor is subject to judicial review?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim promotion to the post of Vice-Chancellor?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Liaqat Ali vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-25
  provisional admissioninterim orderequitable reliefcompletion of courseIntra-Court Appealuniversity admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition challenging the denial of his admission to the M.Sc. course by the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The appellant had originally been denied admission for lacking a nomination from the Northern Area, but obtained a provisional admission order from the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition. Under the protection of that interim order, the appellant completed his entire course of study, although his writ petition was ultimately dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge. The core legal question was whether an applicant who completed their educational course under a provisional interim order should be deprived of their qualification following the dismissal of their writ petition. Following Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that since the appellant had completed his studies, it would be inequitable and harsh to undo his admission at this stage. Without deciding his eligibility on merits, the Court treated his admission and completion of studies as legal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational institution cancel a student's admission after they have completed their studies under a provisional court order?
  • Whether it is equitable to adjudicate an applicant's admission eligibility on merits after they have already completed the academic course under an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Irfan Ullah Kundi vs Mst. Afzala Irfan and 2 others1999 MLD 2759 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Murtaza Cheema vs Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amjad Yasin and 5 others vs Mian Muhammad Ataullah1999 YLR 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abrar Hussain Baloch vs Additional Director, Anti-Corruption1999 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms, GHQ Through Major AbdulK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 187 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs Baber Shahzad And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan Bangash vs The State1999 MLD 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulriqar Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 364 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulfiqar Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain Butt vs Sheikh Zulfiqar Ali and 4 others1999 MLD 2602 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain and 3 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Dhanoot, District Lodhran and 2 others1999 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies-II, Lawrence1999 PTD 4147 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-23
  income taxadvance taxdeduction at sourcesuppliessale of goodsstatutory interpretationde novo proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns eight Income Tax Appeals arising from a dispute over whether purchases made by the respondent/assessee during the financial years 1990-1995 constituted 'supplies' under Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, thereby requiring the deduction of advance income tax. The Assessing Officer had treated these purchases as 'supplies' and assessed the respondent in default for failing to deduct tax. The Appellate Tribunal had previously set aside these assessments, holding that 'purchases' were distinct from 'supplies' and thus outside the scope of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the term 'supplies' is of wide amplitude and encompasses 'sales' where a seller provides goods to a buyer for a price. The Court ruled that the Tribunal's interpretation was legally erroneous and set it aside. Consequently, the Court restored the order of the First Appellate Authority, which had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo determination of the tax liability, requiring a factual inquiry into whether specific purchases qualified as taxable supplies under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'supplies' under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 include 'sales' of goods?
  • Is a purchaser required to deduct advance income tax on payments made for the purchase of goods under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Can the Commissioner of Income Tax grant an exemption from tax deduction at source under Section 50(4)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Arif Latif1999 PTD 4120 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Col. (R.) Sadiq Hassan Shaikh vs Tassadaq Humayun And 6 Other1999 CLC 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-15Read full judgment →
• Co-Operative Model Town Society (1962) Ltd. through Its, Administrator vs Anwar Ahmad Khan ShirwaniK.L.R 1999 Civil Cases 306 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Citibank through Attorney vs District Registrar/District1999 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
• Citi Bank vs Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., Lahore and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Citi Bank vs District Registrar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
• Chiragh vs Abdul and others1999 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07
  res judicatacause of actionsplitting of claimssuit for possessionperpetual injunctionOrder II Rule 2 CPCcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute over the possession of land. The petitioner previously filed a suit for a permanent injunction, claiming exclusive possession of 16 Marlas of land. During that litigation, an arbitrator determined the petitioner was only in possession of 8 Marlas, leading to a decree for that portion. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a new suit for possession of the remaining 8 Marlas. The First Appellate Court dismissed this second suit, invoking Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, on the grounds that the claim was barred by the previous litigation. The Lahore High Court examined whether the cause of action in the second suit was identical to the first. The Court held that the cause of action for the second suit arose only after the finding in the first suit revealed the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed portion. Consequently, the Court ruled that the bar under Order II, Rule 2 does not apply when the cause of action in a subsequent suit is distinct and accrues only after the dismissal or findings of the former suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit for possession of land filed after a previous suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed for lack of possession constitute a splitting of claims under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when the cause of action for the subsequent suit arises only after the findings of the former suit?
  • Is a subsequent suit for possession barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff made an incorrect averment regarding possession in a prior suit for injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab,1999 MLD 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Chief Officer, District Council, Sheikhupura and 2 others vs Haji Sultan1999 YLR 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19
  cattle marketdamagesbreach of contractnegotiated leaseproof of losscivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and damages was decreed. The plaintiff claimed the right of collection of fees for a cattle market through an open auction and alleged that the defendants breached the agreement by establishing a competing cattle market nearby, causing him heavy weekly losses and business reverses. The defendants resisted the suit on grounds of maintainability, lack of notice, non-joinder of necessary parties, absence of actual proof of damages, and the existence of an arbitration clause. The Lahore High Court examined the record and found that the plaintiff acquired the market rights through a negotiated lease rather than an open auction, that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claims of damages with concrete evidence or financial details, and that the establishment of the new market did not violate any terms of the agreement. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff claiming damages for breach of contract is required to prove actual losses and specific financial details through tangible evidence?
  • Does the establishment of a new market by a local authority, in the absence of an express contractual bar, constitute a violation of a lease agreement regarding a separate cattle market?
  • Can a suit for damages succeed when the plaintiff fails to substantiate hypothetical figures of weekly profit and expenditure?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Controller, Import & Export Etc. vs (Mst.) Ghulam Zohra1999 P.C.T.L.R. 83 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas vs Barkat Ali and another1999 YLR 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-24
  co-sharerjoint holdingsale deedrevenue mutationpartial partitionpossession adjustmentrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for possession of land purchased by the petitioner via a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific field number within a joint holding can validly alienate the entire field number, provided it does not exceed their overall share, and whether a subsequent revenue mutation curtailing that area is sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific field number can alienate the entire field number within the limits of their entitlement, and the vendee effectively steps into the shoes of the vendor subject to future partition adjustment. The Court ruled that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit based on an incorrect revenue mutation and a partial private partition. The key principles laid down are that a registered sale deed executed by a co-sharer within their share limits cannot be unilaterally curtailed by erroneous revenue mutations, that a vendee's possession is subject to adjustment upon a comprehensive partition of the joint khata, and that partial partitions excluding certain joint properties are legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific field number alienate the entire field number if it does not exceed their overall share in the joint holding?
  • Does an erroneous entry in a revenue mutation override the explicit terms of a registered sale deed?
  • Is a partial private partition of joint land excluding certain field numbers legally valid?
  • What is the legal status of a vendee who purchases land from a co-sharer out of a joint holding pending a formal partition?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif through Legal Heirs and 13 others vs Hassan Din and 12 others1999 YLR 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Ilam Din vs Lahore Development Authority, LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 226 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs Dr. M.1999 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. Tanvir Khan vs President, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi and 2 others1999 MLD 721 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18
  Cantonment Board electionsdisqualification of candidatesitting MPAloan guarantorundischarged insolventlegislation by referencepolitical party affiliationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged two orders issued by the President of the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, disqualifying the petitioner from contesting elections to the Cantonment Board. The petitioner’s nomination papers were initially accepted after scrutiny, but he was later issued a show-cause notice and disqualified on two grounds: first, that as a sitting Member of the Provincial Assembly (MPA) elected on a political party ticket, he violated Section 15-BB of the Cantonments Act 1924; second, that as a loan guarantor, he was an undischarged insolvent under Section 15-B(2)(b). The Lahore High Court held that a loan guarantor is not an undischarged insolvent under insolvency laws or election provisions. However, the Court ruled that under Section 15-B(2)(g) of the Cantonments Act 1924, disqualifications contained in other laws governing elective bodies—specifically Section 21(1)(k) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979—must be read into the Act. Consequently, a sitting MPA is disqualified from contesting Cantonment Board elections. The petition was dismissed and fresh elections ordered for the ward.

  Questions settled

  • Does status as a loan guarantor render a candidate an undischarged insolvent for the purpose of disqualification under election laws?
  • Can statutory disqualifications set out in other election laws be incorporated into the Cantonments Act 1924 by virtue of Section 15-B(2)(g)?
  • Is a sitting Member of the Provincial Assembly disqualified from contesting an election to a Cantonment Board?
  • Does the President of a Cantonment Board possess authority to disqualify a candidate for violating prohibitions on political party affiliations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Javed vs The Chairman, Union Committee (Arbitration1999 YLR 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28
  constitutional jurisdictionalternative remedydisputed factsdivorce certificateMuslim Family Laws Ordinancewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a dispute regarding the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 through divorce, and the subsequent issuance of a divorce certificate by respondent No. 1, the Chairman of the Union Committee. The core legal questions involve whether disputed questions of fact regarding the issuance and withdrawal of a divorce notice can be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and whether the petition is barred due to the availability of an alternative adequate remedy under the relevant statute. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the controversy involves disputed factual inquiries that cannot be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction, and that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedies provided by law, such as approaching the District Collector. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions are not maintainable when a case involves factual controversies and where statutory alternative remedies have not been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding a divorce notice be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternative adequate remedy is available under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Is a writ petition liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Idrees, Advocate vs S.H.O., Police Station, Pattoki, District Kasur And Other1999 CLC 570 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Attaullah Kausar1999 YLR 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Amin vs L. D.a, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Javed vs Zila Council, Gujrat through Administrator and 3 others1999 MLD 3366 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Habibullah And Others vs Ali Muhammad Mohsin1999 CLC 1798 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Attahmohayouddin vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ch. Alla-Ud-Din vs S.S.P., District Sargodha and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1909 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26
  writ petitionpolice harassmentjurisdiction of local policeFederal Investigation AgencyImmigration Ordinancecriminal procedurevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by Ch. Alla-ud-Din against the Superintendent of Police, District Sargodha and the S.H.O. Police Station Bhera, seeking to restrain them from harassing him and his family regarding the alleged misdeeds and money dispute involving his disinherited son, Rana Muhammad Anwar. The core legal question was whether the local police possessed the statutory jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and conduct an inquiry into matters falling exclusively under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, which fall within the domain of the Federal Investigation Agency pursuant to the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975, and whether a father could be harassed or held liable for the acts of his adult son. The Lahore High Court held that the local police lacked jurisdiction to interfere in matters allocated to specialized agencies like the Federal Investigation Agency, and that holding an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the local police was illegal and without foundation. The Court laid down the principle that different branches of the police operate within watertight compartments of statutory jurisdiction, that local police cannot usurp the powers of specialized investigative bodies, and that no person can be held liable or harassed for the crimes or acts of their relatives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the local police have the legal jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into offenses triable or investigated exclusively by the Federal Investigation Agency?
  • Does section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower a police officer to hold an inquiry or investigate a case beyond their statutory jurisdiction?
  • Can a person be held legally liable or harassed by law enforcement for the alleged offenses or debts of their adult, disinherited son?
  • Whether the Superintendent of Police has the authority to entertain a complaint and initiate preliminary inquiries into matters falling outside the allocated sphere of the local police?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Ahmadyar, Advocate vs Sartaj Aziz, Federal Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance and anothers1999 MLD 3341 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmad Din vs Administrator, Municipal Committee, Arifwala and others1999 YLR 724 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Central Board of Revenue and another vs Kohinoor Weaving Mills1999 MLD 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
• Central Bank of India vs Syed Muhammad Abdul Jalil Shah And Other1999 CLC 671 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30
  recovery of loanpledge of goodsmortgage suitlimitation periodconcurrent remediesset-offbankers books evidencepreliminary decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two Regular First Appeals (RFA No. 44 of 1969 and RFA No. 4 of 1970) arising from a civil court judgment dismissing a recovery suit filed by the Central Bank of India against a borrower and guarantor for recovery of a loan secured by hypothecation, pledge, and mortgages of immovable and movable properties. The core legal questions involved the competency of the suit's institution, the applicable period of limitation, the maintainability of a suit for debt recovery by a pawnee without returning the pledged goods, and the proof of the bank's accounts. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was competently instituted through a duly authorized attorney, was governed by Articles 116 and 132 of the Limitation Act 1908 making it well within time, and that a pawnee has concurrent rights to sue for the debt while retaining pledged goods as collateral, though the borrower is entitled to a set-off for the value of unreturned pledged stock. The court set aside the trial court's dismissal, granted a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and remanded the matter for taking accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for recovery of a loan secured by a registered mortgage and personal covenant is governed by Article 116 and Article 132 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a pawnee lose the right to sue for the recovery of a debt under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872 merely because the pledged goods are not returned or are lost?
  • Are the rights of a pawnee to retain a pledge, sell the pledge, and bring a suit for the debt concurrent or alternative under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Whether certified copies of entries in bankers' books under Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891 are by themselves sufficient to charge a borrower with liability without corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Cantonment. Board, Rawalpindi Through Executive Officer vs Abdul Aziz1999 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi through Its Executive Officer vs Abdul Aziz QureshiK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 438 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bushra Siddique vs Mirza Muhammad Aslam1999 CLC 1913 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Brig. Talat Saeed Khan and another vs Privatization Commission, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others1999 YLR 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Boota And Other vs Ghulam Haider (Deceased) And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
• Boota and 2 others vs Ghulam Haider through his Legal Heirs1999 YLR 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Through Secretary vs Mst. Sobia Chand1999 CLC 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28
  civil revisionjurisdiction of civil courtcorrection of date of birtheducational boardouster of jurisdictiongood faithconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which had decreed the respondent's suit for a declaration and mandatory injunction for the correction of her date of birth in educational records. The core legal questions were whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the relevant statutes and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the correct date of birth were sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was expressly ousted under Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976, as the board's committee had acted in good faith within its statutory authority, and that the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding the date of birth. The court set aside the findings on jurisdiction and issue of date of birth, accepting the revision petition and dismissing the respondent's suit. The key legal principle laid down is that where a statutory board acts in good faith pursuant to its powers under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976, the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted, and concurrent findings vitiated by misreading of evidence are amenable to revisional interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 29 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to question acts done by the Board in pursuance of the Act?
  • Whether a civil suit for the correction of a date of birth in educational records is maintainable in the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the Board?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when there is a misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • What are the conditions necessary to oust the jurisdiction of a court when a statute provides that an order made by an authority shall not be called in question?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Through Chairman And Another vs Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Advocate1999 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and another vs Riaz Hussain1999 PLC (C.S.) 680 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Bilqees Bibi vs The Civil Judge, Ist Class Tehsil Burewala and 3 others1999 YLR 373 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Bhatti Brother & Co. And Other vs National Bank.of Pakistan, through Vice President_Attorney National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Bhatti & Company Ltd. vs Shahnawaz Ltd.1999 MLD 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
• Bcci through Habib Bank Limited vs Hamaliya Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 MLD 3195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Basma Tabassam vs Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and 6 others1999 MLD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Masih vs Muhammad ArshadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Etc. vs Maqsood AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 827 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs Muhammad Safdar and others1999 MLD 2878 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Barkat Masih vs Barkat Bibi and 3 others1999 YLR 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-01
  civil revisionlocal commissionerrefereelimitationremand orderbinding agreementsuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate court order that set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core legal question was whether a report submitted by a Local Commissioner, appointed pursuant to a joint statement by the parties agreeing to be bound by the findings, constitutes a report of a referee, thereby precluding the necessity for objections or further adjudication. The High Court held that where parties voluntarily agree to abide by the findings of a person appointed to verify facts, that person acts as a referee rather than a standard Local Commissioner under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the report is binding and not subject to the procedural requirements of filing objections. The Court further noted that the appeal before the lower appellate court was time-barred. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's judgment, establishing that a referee's report based on a binding agreement between parties is conclusive and final.

  Questions settled

  • Does a report by a Local Commissioner appointed by a joint statement of parties constitute a report of a referee?
  • Is a report of a referee subject to the filing of objections under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate court remand a suit where the parties have previously agreed to be bound by the findings of a referee?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1999 YLR 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-16Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Nazir Ahmad1999 CLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Bankers Equity Ltd. through Attorney and 5 others vs Sunflo Cit-Russ1999 PLD Lahore 450 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20
  leave to defendcorporate authorizationmaintainability of suitCompanies Ordinanceprocedural irregularitybanking recoverylocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery against the defendant. The defendant filed an application for leave to defend under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credit and Finances) Act, 1997, signed by its Purchase Manager. The plaintiff challenged the maintainability of this application, arguing that the Purchase Manager lacked authorization under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the defendant's Memorandum and Articles of Association. The core legal question was whether an application for leave to defend signed by an unauthorized officer of a company constitutes a curable irregularity or a fatal illegality. The Court held that the application was incompetent and not maintainable because the signatory lacked valid authorization, and the defect was not a mere technicality but a patent illegality. The Court emphasized that a company cannot orally authorize an individual to act on its behalf and that subsequent authorization, especially after the limitation period, cannot validate an initially defective filing. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for leave to defend filed by an unauthorized officer of a company be treated as a curable irregularity?
  • Is a company required to provide written authorization for an officer to sign legal pleadings on its behalf?
  • Does an authorization granted after the expiry of the limitation period validate a previously defective legal application?
  • Can an application for leave to defend be maintained if the signatory lacks authority under the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadar vs Jamat Ali and 6 others1999 MLD 2429 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14
  restoration of appealnon-prosecutionmisnoting of dateadjudication on meritsprocedural technicalitiesappellate court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge, Kasur, which dismissed an application for the restoration of an appeal that had been previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in refusing to restore the appeal despite the appellant's explanation of inadvertent misnoting of the hearing date. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained because the lower court failed to consider the affidavit of the counsel and the party, and erroneously excluded evidence based on a technicality regarding a missing power of attorney that was not disputed by the respondents. The Court emphasized that in matters of restoration, courts should exercise generous consideration, favoring adjudication on merits over technical dismissals. The principle laid down is that the misnoting of a date by counsel constitutes a sufficient ground for restoration, and a court must not decide such applications based on assumptions or pleas not raised in the pleadings, nor should it dismiss them without framing issues or recording evidence where necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inadvertent misnoting of a hearing date by counsel constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an application for restoration of an appeal based on grounds not raised in the respondent's pleadings?
  • Is it mandatory for an appellate court to frame issues or record evidence when determining the sufficiency of cause for the restoration of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs The State1999 YLR 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Badar Shamshad Ali vs Mahmoodulhassan1999 MLD 2436 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Babu vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 704 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali Raza vs The State1999 YLR 2526 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
• Azra Parveen vs Sardar Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
• Azmat Rabbani vs United Bank Limited, Bank Square, Faisalabad And 31999 CLC 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mahmood vs The State1999 YLR 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs The State1999 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan And Another vs Mst. Naushaba Begum And 3 Other1999 CLC 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ayub Shahzad vs Obaida ParveenK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 491 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Maryam vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Gujranwala through Chairman and 2 others1999 MLD 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Maryam vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary EducationK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-24Read full judgment →
• Aya Sasaki vs Zarina Akhtar1999 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Awuwu Hamid Muhammad and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-12Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
• Attock Industrial Products Limited vs Heavy Mechanical Complex1999 MLD 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 3445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Rahm HussainK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs D.S.P. Legal, Gujranwala and anothers1999 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and 3 othersRazzaq vs The State1999 MLD 3378 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Atif Shahbaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 657 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-29Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs Qaiser Khan and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-25
  bail cancellationqatl-e-khataaccidental deathtentative assessmentpolice opinioncapital punishmentdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was moved by the complainant under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to the accused respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted for an alleged capital offense based purely on police opinions and an unsubstantiated defense plea of accidental murder equating to qatl-e-khata without supporting material evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge exercised discretion arbitrarily by relying on fanciful and artificial grounds without tangible material, as the eyewitness accounts and medical reports prima facie linked the accused to intentional murder under section 302. The court laid down the principle that while bail once granted is not ordinarily cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds, interference is warranted when the order is based on arbitrary presumptions. Furthermore, a special defense plea of accidental death or qatl-e-khata cannot be entertained at the bail stage to discard direct prosecution evidence unless supported by clear material on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail once granted be cancelled if the grounds for its grant are artificial, fanciful, or arbitrary?
  • Is a special defense plea of accidental death or qatl-e-khata entertainable at the bail stage without supporting material evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an investigating officer's opinion in determining bail for an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment?
  • Does the submission of a police report under a lesser offense restrict the court from independently examining the material for a capital charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Qureshi, Chief Editor, Haftroza Roshan, Gujranwala vs Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, President, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26
  Ehtesab Actaccountabilityconstitutional petitionviolation of fundamental rightsequal protectioncut-off datepending proceedingsdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple constitutional petitions and miscellaneous applications challenging the constitutional validity and vires of the Ehtesab Act, 1997 and its predecessor ordinances. The core legal questions involved the constitutionality of the Ehtesab framework, the delegation of powers to the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, the creation and role of the Ehtesab Cell, the fixation of a cut-off date for accountability, and the legality of keeping pending proceedings alive for periods prior to the cut-off date. The Lahore High Court held that the Ehtesab Act, 1997 as a whole is constitutional, does not suffer from excessive delegation, and that the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner maintains a pivotal and independent investigatory and referral role. However, the Court held that section 31(2)(c) of the Ehtesab Act, 1997, which kept pending proceedings for the period prior to the statutory cut-off date of 6-11-1990 alive, was discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The key legal principle laid down is that while the legislature possesses wide discretion in fixing cut-off dates and creating accountability mechanisms, statutory provisions that arbitrarily maintain pending legal proceedings for periods prior to a newly established cut-off date violate Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Ehtesab Act, 1997 suffers from excessive delegation of powers regarding references made by the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner?
  • Does the creation of the Ehtesab Cell relegate the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner to a mere post office under the Ehtesab Act, 1997?
  • Can the legislature's fixation of a cut-off date for accountability be challenged on the grounds of mala fides and lack of legislative wisdom?
  • Whether section 31(2)(c) of the Ehtesab Act, 1997, by keeping pending proceedings alive for the period prior to 6-11-1990, violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Hussain Qadri vs Muhamamd Umar1999 MLD 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-27
  specific performancefunctus officioextension of timeconsent decreecivil revisiondecree compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the Trial Court's order dismissing an application for extension of time to deposit the balance consideration in a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court had decreed the suit based on a consent agreement but subsequently dismissed the petitioner's application for extension of time, holding that it had become functus officio after passing the decree. The core legal question was whether a court retains jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance amount in a specific performance decree after the decree has been passed. The High Court held that the Trial Court's view was erroneous and that the court retains jurisdiction to extend time for performance even after a decree is passed. The principle laid down is that a court in a specific performance suit does not become functus officio upon passing a decree and possesses the inherent power to extend the time for compliance with the decree's conditions. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a decision on the application for extension of time on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court become functus officio after passing a decree for specific performance?
  • Does a court have the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance amount in a specific performance decree after the decree has been passed?
  • Can a court extend the time for compliance with a consent decree in a specific performance suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Saeed vs Registrar, Lahore High Court and others1999 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01
  writ jurisdictionmaintainability of writ petitionadministrative orderspersona designataHigh Court Establishment RulesLegal Practitioners and Bar Councils ActArticle 199 barenrolment of advocates
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioners challenged administrative orders of the Lahore High Court, including the refusal of required approval under Section 27(c) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 for grant of licence/exemption to practice as an advocate, and an administrative order compulsorily retiring a High Court employee under the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. The core legal question was whether administrative, executive, or consultative orders passed by the High Court or a Judge acting on its behalf can be challenged through writ petitions under Article 199, despite the bar in Article 199(5). The Lahore High Court dismissed all the petitions, holding them incompetent. The Court laid down that Article 199(5) excludes the High Court from the definition of 'person', thereby barring writ petitions against all acts, actions, and orders made by the High Court or its Judges in performance of their official functions, regardless of whether such functions are judicial, administrative, executive, or consultative. A Judge performing official administrative duties acts on behalf of the High Court and is not a persona designata.

  Questions settled

  • Is an administrative or executive order passed by a High Court or its Judge amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar writ petitions against non-judicial or consultative actions of a High Court?
  • Does a High Court Judge acting under statutory administrative powers or rules act as a persona designata amenable to writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 lie against the High Court on the ground of enforcing fundamental rights under Article 199(1)(c)?
  Read full judgment →