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.

• Shaukat Khan vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 29) · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs Full Bench N.I.R.C., Islamabad and 6 others1998 PLC 12 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs Full Bench N.I.R.C. Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs S.H.O. SadiqabadK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Ramzan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 643 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Director, Land Record and others1998 MLD 608 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sharifan and 6 others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Interior Division, Islamabad1998 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27
  citizenshipfundamental rightsequality of citizensgender discriminationprivate international lawdomicileconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Pakistani woman and her Indian husband along with their children, seeking the grant of Pakistani citizenship to the husband on the basis of his marriage. The core legal question was whether section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which grants citizenship to foreign wives of Pakistani citizens but not to foreign husbands of Pakistani women, violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that section 10 of the Act is constitutionally valid and does not amount to invidious discrimination, as Article 25 guarantees equality to citizens rather than aliens, and the legislature is competent to provide special concessions for women in accordance with private international law and public policy. The court laid down the principle that the legislature may enact special provisions for women, and that individual rights must yield to the broader security and regulatory interests of the nation regarding citizenship. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a foreign husband of a Pakistani citizen claim citizenship as a matter of fundamental right based on marriage?
  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, apply to non-citizens and aliens?
  • Whether the legislature is competent to make special provisions in citizenship laws in favor of women?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif, Etc. vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Shamila Parveen vs University of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shamas Rizwan vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1998 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
• Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Food, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1998 CLC 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18
  Sugarcane Development CessProvincial legislative competenceMartial Law ordinancesConstitutional validationFreedom of tradeCompensatory taxQuid pro quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging the vires of the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1964, and subsequent amendments made by the Punjab Finance (Amendment) Ordinances of 1978 and 1983, which levied a Sugarcane (Development) Cess. The petitioners argued that the Ordinances were invalid as they were not placed before the Provincial Assembly, that the cess constituted an unconstitutional central excise duty, and that it violated fundamental rights regarding trade and economic equality under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Governor possessed the power to promulgate the impugned Ordinances during the Martial Law period, and that Article 270-A of the Constitution validated these laws, rendering subsequent legislative approval unnecessary. The Court further determined that the cess was a valid provincial levy, not a central excise duty, and that it did not violate Articles 18, 23, 25, or 151 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that compensatory levies for specific development purposes are constitutionally permissible and that the mere variance in cess rates between provinces does not constitute discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 validate Ordinances promulgated during the Martial Law period without requiring subsequent approval by the Provincial Assembly?
  • Is the Sugarcane (Development) Cess levied under the West Pakistan Finance Act 1964 a valid provincial levy or an unconstitutional central excise duty?
  • Does a variation in the rate of a provincial cess between different provinces violate the principle of economic equality or freedom of trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a taxing statute be struck down on the ground of discrimination merely because it differs from legislation enacted by another province?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahsawar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18
  anti-terrorism trialretrospective jurisdictionright to counselfair trialcapital punishmentmistrialremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court Anti-Terrorism convicting the appellants under various provisions including section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had retrospective jurisdiction to try an offence committed before the enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity of defence and legal representation, violating statutory safeguards and fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that while the Special Court possessed jurisdiction under the schedule to try certain offences committed prior to the enactment, the trial was severely vitiated due to a denial of adequate legal assistance, failure to provide separate counsel for each accused, and undue haste in recording evidence without allowing sufficient preparation time. The court set aside the convictions and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that the right of an accused to be defended by a pleader in a capital case is a paramount statutory and constitutional right, and courts must not sacrifice fairness and due process at the altar of speedy trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 have jurisdiction to try scheduled offences committed prior to the commencement of the Act?
  • Does the failure to provide adequate time and separate legal representation to multiple co-accused vitiate a criminal trial in a capital case?
  • Is the right of an accused to be defended by a pleader protected under constitutional guarantees of due process and security of person?
  • Can a court sacrifice the fundamental interests of justice and fair play in the name of conducting a speedy trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Naseem vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood vs The State1998 MLD 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs (Mst.) Bashiran BibiK.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Shahid Javed vs Govt. Of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Javed vs Government of the Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Akhtar vs Government of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-23
  ad hoc appointmentcivil servantservice tribunaljurisdiction of High Courtterms and conditions of servicejudicial reviewtermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Subject Specialists on an ad hoc basis by the Government of the Punjab, challenged a directive terminating their services after their tenure expired. They contended that their removal was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights, arguing that they were entitled to continue until a regular selectee was appointed. The Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether Article 212 of the Constitution barred the High Court from entertaining these petitions. The Court held that the petitioners, as ad hoc appointees, fell within the definition of 'civil servants' under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and that matters relating to their terms and conditions of service fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that its jurisdiction under Article 199 was excluded by Article 212 of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that service disputes must be adjudicated by the specialized tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Are ad hoc government employees considered 'civil servants' for the purposes of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review in service matters where the Punjab Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the existence of a contractual appointment letter exclude an employee from the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Aslam vs Zaman Khan and another1998 CLC 393 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur1998 PLC (C.S.) 332 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 51998 P Cr. L J 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Man---Appeilant vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur and another1998 CLC 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs State1998 MLD 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The Director, Agriculture (Research), Regional1998 PLC (C.S.) 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Siddiq vs Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others1998 MLD 624 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07
  Rent restrictionLandlord and tenant relationshipJurisdictional issueCessation of tenancyConstitutional jurisdictionEjectment applicationCo-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by a Rent Controller directing tenants to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenants, who initially admitted the tenancy, later amended their written statements to claim they had purchased the shops, thereby becoming co-sharers and causing the tenancy to cease. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could validly order rent deposits under Section 13(6) without first adjudicating the tenants' plea regarding the cessation of the landlord-tenant relationship and the resulting lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the plea of cessation of tenancy was a foundational and jurisdictional objection. Consequently, the Rent Controller lacked the authority to pass an order under Section 13(6) until the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. The Court ruled that the impugned orders were without lawful authority and directed the Rent Controller to first frame and decide the issue of the cessation of tenancy and the related question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the ejectment applications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller pass an order for rent deposit under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the tenant disputes the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Is a plea regarding the cessation of tenancy due to the tenant becoming a co-sharer a jurisdictional issue that must be decided before ordering rent deposits?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller if that order is alleged to be without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Jamil vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1998 MLD 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Sh. Barkat Ali Cycle Works, Gulbergii, Lahore vs Haji Waheeduddin, Gulbergii, Lahore1998 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdur Rashid vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Senator Gulzar Ahmad vs Punjab Cooperative Board1998 CLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi1998 CLC 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-11
  ejectmentdefault in rentpersonal bona fide needlegal representativesrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a rent appeal concerning the ejectment of tenants from a residential property on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased original tenant, lacked notice of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and whether default in rent was established. The court held that the appellants had knowledge of the pending proceedings given their timely filing of the appeal and representation by counsel, and that default by the original tenant stood proven. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the ejectment order was maintained, and a period of four months was granted to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that legal representatives of a deceased tenant cannot claim lack of notice or prejudice when record evidence demonstrates their active awareness of ongoing rent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal representatives of a deceased tenant can claim lack of notice when they had knowledge of the pending rent proceedings?
  • Are legal heirs bound by the defaults committed by their ancestor during his lifetime under tenancy laws?
  • Whether an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default and personal need is maintainable when the landlord's evidence remains unchallenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Ripe Agencies vs Jahangir Chemicals1998 P.C.T.L.R. 920 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sarnawaz vs State1998 MLD 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-25
  surety bondforfeiture of bondpre-arrest bailcriminal procedureliability of suretybail bond interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, forfeiting the petitioner's surety bond and directing the deposit of a penalty sum. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused person granted pre-arrest interim bail, but the surety bond explicitly limited the petitioner's responsibility for the accused's appearance to a specific date. The core legal question was whether a surety can be held liable for the non-appearance of an accused on dates subsequent to the period for which the surety bond was expressly undertaken. The Court held that the surety's liability is strictly confined to the terms of the bond. Since the bond clearly specified that the petitioner's undertaking was limited to the accused's appearance until January 8, 1997, the petitioner could not be held responsible for the accused's absence on later dates. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture order. The judgment establishes the principle that surety bonds must be interpreted according to their specific terms, and courts should ensure that such bonds clearly specify the duration of liability, including any extended dates.

  Questions settled

  • Can a surety be held liable for the non-appearance of an accused on dates beyond the period explicitly stated in the surety bond?
  • Is a court order forfeiting a surety bond sustainable if the bond's terms do not cover the date of the accused's default?
  • What is the duty of courts when accepting printed surety bond forms regarding the specification of liability dates?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Nasim vs Sajjad Hussain1998 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad vs Government of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmed Khan vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Civil1998 MLD 986 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Salim Raza vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem Raza Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• Saleem Nisar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax, Bah1998 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem alias Lodhi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-14Read full judgment →
• Salam Din vs The State1998 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs District Judge, Multan and others1998 MLD 710 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-18Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman RecruitmentK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Recruitment1998 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Pindigheb and 4 others1998 P Cr. L J 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Amjad vs Abdul Hameed and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09
  inherent powersabuse of processquashing of plaintcivil procedurejurisdictionfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking to declare a pending civil suit for specific performance as an abuse of the process of the court and to have the plaint quashed by the High Court. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. to entertain an application straightaway and quash a plaint pending before a subordinate civil court. The Lahore High Court held that section 151, C.P.C. pertains to the inherent jurisdiction of each civil court before which a lis is pending, and once a court decides a matter or if the proceeding is before a subordinate court, the High Court cannot invoke section 151 to quash a plaint or interfere outside the scope of specific statutory provisions such as revision or appeal. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. are not co-extensive with the powers of subordinate courts, cannot be exercised when no matter is pending before the High Court itself, and cannot be used to circumvent express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to entertain an application and quash a plaint pending before a subordinate civil court?
  • Can the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised when no matter is pending before the court?
  • Whether section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked where there is an express provision in the Code dealing with the particular matter?
  • Are the inherent powers of the High Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 co-extensive with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Iqbal vs Mukhtar Ahmad and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Sajid Iqbal and others vs Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Senior Civil1998 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• Umar Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sajid and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02
  post-arrest bailmurderunnatural carnal intercourselast seen evidenceplea of minorityfurther enquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged murder of a young man after unnatural carnal intercourse. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners, claiming to be under sixteen years of age, are entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the last-seen evidence, medical indicators, and recovered semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds for withholding bail. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution has collected sufficient and natural last-seen evidence, and that the plea of minority is doubtful due to conflicting birth certificates. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that it was not a fit case for bail at the pre-trial stage. The key principle laid down is that where prima facie evidence links the accused to a heinous crime and the plea of minority remains disputed, bail ought to be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Are juvenile offenders under the age of sixteen automatically entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their actual date of birth is disputed through conflicting documents?
  • Does reliable last-seen evidence coupled with incriminating circumstantial evidence like semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can a plea of minority raised for the purpose of bail be conclusively accepted at the pre-trial stage when contradictory birth certificates are placed on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifurrehman Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman And Other vs Superintendent Jail, Faisalabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ul-Haq Ziay vs Majid Nizammi. Etc.K.L.R. 199& Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-28Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmad vs Director Land Records, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Safarish Ali and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Safarish Ali And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mehtab Butt, Member, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09
  service tenurerepeal of ordinanceaccrued rightspay scale entitlementfour-tier service structureadministrative discriminationremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two separate matters: the tenure and salary scale of Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission, and the inclusion of Trained Graduate Teachers in a four-tier service structure. In the first matter, the Court held that the repeal of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, did not divest the petitioners of rights and privileges already accrued under the repealed law, specifically regarding their tenure. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to Basic Pay Scale (BS)-21, as the amendments to the Punjab Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978, remained intact. In the second matter, the Supreme Court remanded the case of Trained Graduate Teachers to the authorities, directing a re-examination of their exclusion from a four-tier service structure. The Court emphasized that if the original scheme approved by the Prime Minister was modified by the Establishment Division without a back-reference, the matter required reconsideration, particularly in light of potential discrimination compared to other teaching cadres.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of an amending ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect rights and privileges already accrued under that ordinance?
  • Can a government department unilaterally reduce the tenure of a statutory appointee without prior notice and hearing?
  • Does the reduction of posts in a government service scheme, previously approved by the Prime Minister, require a back-reference to the Prime Minister for re-approval?
  • Does the grant of a higher pay scale through amended service rules remain valid despite the subsequent repeal of the ordinance that initially introduced the amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Federal Public Service Commission, Chughtai Plaza, Blue Area, Islamabad through Chairman1998 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and another vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Sabran Bibi vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Muhammad Mansha and others1998 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Sharif, Etc. vs The Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, EtcK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 529 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ghani vs Mst. Sahr Rizwan and another1998 CLC 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad and otherss vs University of Agriculture and others1998 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-01Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station City, Bahawalpur1998 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The State1998 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The Border Area Committee and others1998 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rehman and 5 others vs The State and another1998 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Raza Mustafa vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Rauniq Ali vs Muhammad Mansoor Butt1998 CLC 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Rauf Ahmed Ghori vs Managing Director, Cholistan Development1998 CLC 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Illaqa Magistrate, Ghulam Muhammad Abad Area, Faisalabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 579 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheedoo vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Farooq vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Sohail Aziz vs Regional Transport Authority, Bahawalpur1998 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Naveed vs Special Judge and others1998 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Raja Nasir Khan vs Abdul Sattar Khan and another1998 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03
  earnest moneybianaoral agreementimmovable propertytime is not of the essenceaward of interestcompound interestancillary reliefrecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for recovery of money and permanent injunction based on an oral agreement for the sale of commercial property, wherein the appellant had received earnest money (biana) amounting to Rs.24,00,000 but failed to secure or transfer a valid title. The core legal questions involved whether time was the essence of the oral agreement, whether earnest money could be forfeited without express terms, and whether the trial court was justified in awarding compound interest from the date of the receipt of money despite the absence of a specific claim in the plaint. The Lahore High Court held that time is not ordinarily of the essence in contracts relating to immovable property, that earnest money cannot be forfeited in the absence of explicit terms, and that under Section 34 and Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court has discretionary power to award interest as an ancillary relief. However, the High Court modified the trial court's decree, holding that interest should run from the date of the decree rather than from the date of the receipt of the unascertained sum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is considered the essence of a contract in oral agreements relating to immovable property?
  • Can a vendor forfeit earnest money in the absence of express terms and conditions in an agreement?
  • Is a court empowered under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to award interest even if it was not specifically prayed for in the plaint?
  • From which date should interest be awarded when the initial claim is for an unascertained sum to be determined by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Gulzar Ahmed vs Mushtaq Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
• Raja Gulzar Ahmed vs Mushtaq Ahmed and 7 others1998 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08
  second FIRcounter versioncognizable offenceconstitutional petitionpolice dutymandatory registrationcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the registration of a first information report (F.I.R.) regarding a cognizable offence involving house trespass, assault, and theft, after the respondent Station House Officer (S.H.O.) refused to record his version and instead registered a case against him at the instance of the opposing parties. The core legal question was whether the registration of a second F.I.R. or a counter version is barred when an F.I.R. has already been registered in respect of the same incident. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are imperative, and a police officer cannot refuse to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence simply because a prior F.I.R. exists. The ratio established is that the registration of a second F.I.R. embodying a counter version or different grievance arising from the same incident is not legally barred, and the police are bound to investigate the counter version impartially.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the registration of a second F.I.R. is barred under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an F.I.R. has already been registered in respect of the same incident?
  • Does a police officer have the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • What is the correct legal procedure for the police when a party presents a counter version or different grievance arising out of an already reported incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Khuda Bakhsh vs Admn. Municipal CommitteeK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Rai Willayat Khan vs Zafar Wattoo, ASI, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ullah alias Kori and 2 otherss vs Mitha Khan and another1998 CLC 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Government of the Punjab through Punjab Highway1998 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31
  withdrawal of suitintra-court appealconstitutional petitionvested rightsalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal sought to challenge an order of a learned Single Judge disposing of a writ petition by directing the parties to avail of the alternate remedy of arbitration provided under their agreement. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought to unconditionally withdraw both the Intra-Court Appeal and the underlying writ petition without permission to file a fresh constitutional petition, noting that a civil suit for rendition of accounts had already been filed. The respondent strongly opposed the withdrawal, arguing that valuable rights had accrued under the impugned order. The Court held that a plaintiff or appellant possesses an indefeasible, unconditional right to withdraw a suit or proceedings under Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject only to established limitations such as the bar on fresh proceedings or the existence of a preliminary decree creating vested rights. Finding that no such rights had accrued to the respondent under the interlocutory disposal of the writ petition, the Court allowed the unconditional withdrawal of both the appeal and the constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an unconditional right to withdraw a suit or appeal?
  • At what point is a party precluded from withdrawing a suit or legal proceeding?
  • Whether the unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition bars a separate pending suit before a court of plenary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 37) · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
• Qutabuddin alias Qutaba and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Qutab vs State1998 MLD 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Industries vs Central Board of Revenue and others1998 PTD 2776 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Sajid And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Javed vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and 8 others1998 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18
  registration of FIRcognizable offencepreliminary inquirypolice dutyconstitutional petitionmandamusSection 154 CrPCPolice Act 1861
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction against police officers to register a criminal case regarding alleged theft of articles. The petitioner had repeatedly approached the police, but the Station House Officer (SHO) conducted an informal preliminary inquiry through an Assistant Sub-Inspector and dropped the matter without registering a case, claiming the allegations were baseless. The court considered whether police can conduct a preliminary inquiry into information disclosing a cognizable offence before registering a First Information Report (FIR). The High Court held that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the police have no discretion to refuse or delay registering an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is provided. Preliminary inquiries prior to FIR registration are not envisaged by law; formal registration must precede investigation. Misuse of information is guarded by Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while police officers who fail to register cognizable cases expose themselves to liability under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the SHO was directed to register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officers conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of allegations before registering an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a police officer have the legal discretion to refuse registration of an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the failure or refusal of a police officer to register an FIR for a cognizable offence exposes the officer to disciplinary or legal action under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Faiz-Ur-Rehman vs Ghulam Ahmed1998 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz Khan vs State1998 MLD 503 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali And Another vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 39) · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →