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.

• Qaisar Mahmood vs Muhammad Shafi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 23 [Lahore] 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Mahmood vs Muhammad Shafi and another1998 PLD Lahore 72 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictionfact-findingalternative remedyNikahnamadiscretionary reliefclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, contending that he and the complainant's relative were legally married. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to determine the validity of a marriage and quash an F.I.R. during the investigation stage. Upon examining the Nikahnama, the Court found it fundamentally defective, lacking necessary witness signatures and containing contradictory entries. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would not engage in fact-finding exercises, such as recording evidence or examining witnesses, which are functions reserved for the investigating officer and the trial court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. It also ruled that the petition was incompetent because the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Police Rules 1934, including seeking discharge before a Magistrate or acquittal during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the validity of a marriage during the investigation stage of a criminal case?
  • Is a petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. maintainable when the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Police Rules 1934 render a constitutional petition for quashment incompetent?
  • Can a petitioner seeking discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 succeed without demonstrating clean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-02Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs Mst. Bakhat Bhari and others1998 CLC 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24
  inheritancelimitationcustomary lawgift mutationMuslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Actdeclaratory suitlimited owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration regarding the inheritance of land. The core legal questions were whether the suit challenging a 1945 gift mutation was barred by limitation and whether the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, invalidated a gift made prior to 15-3-1948. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit was hopelessly time-barred as the gift occurred in 1945 and the plaintiff failed to challenge it within the statutory period. The Court held that transactions, including gifts and sales, made prior to 15-3-1948 are protected under Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, and cannot be reopened. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a declaratory suit must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and the mere enactment of the 1962 Act does not automatically revive time-barred claims or invalidate protected historical transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit challenging a gift mutation made in 1945 barred by limitation if filed in 1966?
  • Does the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, apply to gifts made prior to 15-3-1948?
  • Can a transaction of gift or sale made prior to 15-3-1948 be set aside under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs (Mst.) Bakhat Bhari And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 272 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-20Read full judgment →
• Pyramid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd vs Lahore Development Authority1998 MLD 595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore vs J.V. Gardner and 21998 CLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04
  fatal accidentcompensatory damagesnegligenceres ipsa loquiturquantum of compensationtort liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross Regular First Appeals arising from a trial court decree granting compensatory damages for the death of a passenger in a fatal bus accident. The core legal questions involved whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, and the correct determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the legal heirs. The Lahore High Court held that where a vehicle is under the sole management and control of the defendant's employee and an accident occurs in circumstances not happening without negligence, the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove negligence, which the appellant failed to do. Regarding compensation, the Court held that expected bonuses cannot be included as part of salary without proof that they formed part of the terms and conditions of service, and calculated the compensation based on the deceased's salary with incremental increases over the relevant expected life span, deducting a portion for personal expenses. The appellant corporation's appeal was dismissed, and the claimant's cross-appeal was accepted to modify the compensation amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim res ipsa loquitur apply in a fatal road accident case where the vehicle is under the management and control of the defendant's employee?
  • Can expected annual bonuses be included in the calculation of future income for determining compensatory damages without proof that they form part of the deceased's terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether the transport corporation is liable to pay compensatory damages for the wrongful and negligent act of its driver resulting in a passenger's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Pakistan1998 PLC 93 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural1998 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-10
  local governmentultra viresequal protection of lawunguided discretionprinciples of policyconstitutional interpretationPanchayat systemdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Intra-Court Appeals challenging a judgment that declared the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998, ultra vires the Constitution. The core legal questions were whether the Ordinance, which introduced a nomination-based Panchayat system, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and whether it contradicted the Principles of Policy regarding local government. The Court held that the Ordinance was unconstitutional because it granted the Government absolute, unguided, and arbitrary discretion to nominate members, rendering the law ex facie discriminatory in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Ordinance had lapsed due to the failure of the Provincial Assembly to pass it as an Act within the statutory timeframe. The Court affirmed that while Principles of Policy are not strictly enforceable, they serve as essential aids for constitutional and statutory interpretation. The key principle laid down is that legislation conferring unguided and arbitrary power upon authorities to discriminate between persons in the same class violates the fundamental right to equal protection of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a law that confers absolute and unguided discretion upon the government to nominate members to local bodies violate the right to equal protection of the law?
  • Can the judiciary rely on the Principles of Policy contained in the Constitution as an aid to statutory interpretation?
  • Does the failure of a Provincial Assembly to pass an Ordinance into an Act within the prescribed timeframe result in the repeal of said Ordinance?
  • Is legislation that is ex facie discriminatory subject to challenge even without proof of actual discriminatory treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Imran Khan1998 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department, Government1998 MLD 934 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Rahimyar Khan and 21998 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Faisalabad and another vs Abdul Hameed and 5 others1998 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab in Its Ministry of Communications and Works1998 MLD 589 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Registrar, Firm Nasarul Haq1998 MLD 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Ghulam Jilani1998 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and anothers vs Muhammad Anwar1998 CLC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Ghulam Muhammad Malik, Chairman B.I.S.E., Bahawalpur vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 888 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-22
  civil servicedeputationtenure postrepatriationnatural justicemala fidepunitive transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving on deputation as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, challenged a notification relieving him of his duties and directing him to report to the Education Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, holding a tenure post, could be repatriated or removed without a show-cause notice or hearing, particularly when the government alleged he did not meet performance expectations. The Court held that while the post of Chairman is held during the pleasure of the Controlling Authority, the government's admission that the transfer was based on the petitioner failing to meet expectations transformed the repatriation into a punitive measure. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned notification was arbitrary and mala fide because it punished the petitioner without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The principle laid down is that where a transfer or repatriation is punitive in nature, even if the post is held at the pleasure of the authority, the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing, must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repatriation of a civil servant on deputation, based on alleged poor performance, constitute a punitive action requiring a show-cause notice?
  • Can a tenure post held at the pleasure of the Controlling Authority be terminated without adherence to the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in a repatriation order if the order is tainted by mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. (Retd.) Masoodul Hassan vs Muhammad Iqbal1998 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-20
  personal needlandlord and tenanteviction petitionsubsequent eventspleadings in rent proceedingsretirement of landlordmultiplicity of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's second appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the concurrent dismissal of an eviction petition filed under section 13 of the same Ordinance. The appellant sought ejectment on grounds including personal need, having initially pleaded the need of his wife and children in the application, but later testifying regarding his own requirement and his impending retirement from government service. The core legal questions involved whether a landlord is precluded from proving personal need in evidence when the application pleaded the need of family members, and whether courts can take notice of subsequent events such as the landlord's retirement during the pendency of appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the technical rules of pleadings do not apply to rent proceedings, that children's need is an extension of the landlord's personal need, and that courts are bound to take judicial notice of subsequent events like retirement to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The appeal was allowed and an eviction order was passed against the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord who pleaded the need of his family members in the eviction application can be permitted to establish his own personal need during evidence?
  • Can a court take notice of subsequent events, such as the retirement of a landlord, occurring during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a premature personal need at the time of filing an eviction petition mature upon the landlord's retirement during subsequent appellate proceedings?
  • Are technical rules of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure strictly applicable to rent restriction proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Pioneer Pakistan Seed Ltd. vs United Distributors Pakistan Ltd. And 51998 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  ex parte injunctionad interim injunctiontemporary injunctionprocedural irregularityright to noticecivil appealdistribution agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Lahore, which restrained the appellant from terminating a distribution agreement or appointing new distributors. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against an ex parte ad interim injunction and whether the trial court erred by granting such an injunction without notice to the appellant, in violation of procedural requirements. The High Court held that an appeal is maintainable against an order granting an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the trial judge acted in disregard of Order XXXIX, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by failing to record reasons for dispensing with notice or demonstrating extreme urgency. The principle laid down is that courts must not grant ex parte mandatory injunctions of indefinite duration without notice unless extreme urgency is established, and such orders should not ordinarily exceed fifteen days if passed in the defendant's absence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is an ex parte ad interim injunction order appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court grant an ex parte mandatory injunction of indefinite duration without recording reasons for dispensing with notice?
  • What is the maximum duration for an interim injunction passed in the absence of the defendant under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 200 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Hussain and 2 others vs Mst. Safeena Bibi and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Parvaiz Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 500 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company, Ltd. Saudi-Pak. Towers, Blue, Area, Islamabad through Its Chairman vs Pakistan Chest Federation And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 175 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Pakistan Chest Foundation1998 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16
  short orderdetailed judgmentfunctus officioretirement of judgereasons for decisionconstitutional petitionintra court appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court resolves a batch of Intra Court Appeals arising from a writ petition that challenged the telecasting and broadcasting of cigarette advertisements and sponsorship of programs by tobacco manufacturers on electronic media. The core legal questions examined were whether a short order devoid of reasons constitutes a valid judgment in the eye of law, and whether a retired judge can validly record and sign a detailed judgment after relinquishing office. The Court held that a short order lacking reasons does not qualify as a judgment under the Civil Procedure Code, and that a judge becomes functus officio upon retirement and cannot subsequently author or sign a valid judgment. Consequently, both the short order and the subsequent detailed judgment were set aside as nullities, and the original constitutional petition was deemed pending for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a judicial pronouncement must contain explicit reasons based on law and evidence to be a valid judgment, and any order or judgment written or signed by a judge after retirement is a nullity in the eye of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a short order lacking reasons for the decision constitutes a valid judgment in the eye of law?
  • Can a judge who has retired from service validly record and sign a detailed judgment after relinquishing office?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a judgment without reasoning rendered by a Court render the final decision a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Director, Works and Chief Engineer (Army), G.H.Q., Q.M.G.1998 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09
  civil revisionexecution of decreegovernment litigationmandatory preconditionsprovincial government reportstay of execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application calls in question an order passed by the executing court dismissing the objection petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the execution of a money decree. The core legal question for determination was whether an executing court could proceed with the execution of a decree against the Government or a public officer without complying with the mandatory preconditions embodied in section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 82 are mandatory in nature, requiring the executing court to first specify a time in the decree for its satisfaction, and upon non-satisfaction, to report the matter to the Provincial Government, withholding the issuance of execution processes for a period of three months from the date of such report. The court concluded that a decree against the Government remains incomplete and unexecutable until these statutory preconditions are fully satisfied. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the executing court's order was set aside, and the executing court was directed to report the matter to the Provincial Government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory in nature regarding decrees against the Government?
  • Can an executing court proceed with the execution of a decree against the Government without reporting the non-satisfaction of the decree to the Provincial Government?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to specify a time for satisfaction in a decree passed against the Government?
  • Does an interim stay order passed during a regular first appeal dispense with the statutory preconditions of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railway through Chairman, Pakistan Railway Headquarters1998 CLC 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Herald Publications (Private) Ltd. and 23 otherss vs Federation of Pakistan and 21 others1998 CLC 65 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-12
  Wage BoardNewspaper EmployeesConstitutional PetitionPoint-to-point formulaRetrospective awardFundamental rightsJurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, printers and publishers of various newspapers, challenged the award made by the 6th Wage Board under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court could be appointed as Chairman of the Wage Board under section 9(2) of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, whether the award could have retrospective application, whether the point-to-point fitment formula was illegal, and whether treating non-journalist employees at par with working journalists violated Article 25 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that section 9(2) does not bar a sitting Supreme Court Judge who has previously been a High Court Judge from serving as Chairman, that the Board acted within its statutory powers in applying the point-to-point formula and setting a retrospective date of operation, and that the classification of both journalists and non-journalists under the Act is reasonable and does not violate fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court who has previously served as a High Court Judge can be appointed as Chairman of the Wage Board under section 9(2) of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Can a Wage Board award be made applicable retrospectively from a date prior to its announcement under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Whether the inclusion of non-journalist employees alongside working journalists under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is the role of members of the Wage Board advisory in nature, leaving the final decision on contentious issues to the Chairman?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Council, Islamabad vs Registrar of TradeK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 139 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Council vs Registrar, Trade Unions and another1998 PLC 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04
  trade union registrationindustry definitionestablishment definitionPakistan Engineering CouncilIndustrial Relations Ordinanceprinciple of natural justiceaudi alteram partemconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought by the Pakistan Engineering Council challenging the registration of its employees' union as a trade union by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the Pakistan Engineering Council constituted an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Ordinance, and whether the registration of a trade union without prior notice to the employer violates the principles of natural justice. The Lahore High Court held that the primary function of the Pakistan Engineering Council is to regulate the engineering profession and maintain its standards rather than engage in any business, trade, or commercial activity for profit, and therefore it is neither an 'establishment' nor an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court further held that registering a trade union without issuing notice to the employer violates the principle of audi alteram partem, and the availability of a remedy under section 10 does not bar a constitutional petition where the Registrar defends the illegal registration. The registration certificate was declared illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Engineering Council constitutes an industry or establishment within the meaning of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the registration of a trade union without giving prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the employer violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can an aggrieved employer maintain a constitutional petition against the registration of a trade union when the Registrar of Trade Unions actively defends the registration?
  • Whether the definition of commercial establishment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applies to cases under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• N/A vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad, Etc. vs (Mst.) Sheran Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 502 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur1998 MLD 888 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nizam-Ud-Din, Etc. vs (Mst.) Madal, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 353 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din and 6 others vs Faiz Muhammad and 14 others1998 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Khan vs Abdul Sattar KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 696 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Chaudhry vs Suleman Spinning Mills Ltd. through Chief1998 P.C.T.L.R. 758 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 311 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Aziz Ahmad1998 MLD 253 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Nazeer vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• Nazam Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Abbasi and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, if Abdul Qadoos vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27
  bail cancellationspecial court jurisdictionscheduled offencessuppression of terrorist activitiescoram non judicecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for bail before the High Court following the cancellation of the petitioner's bail by a Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The petitioner, accused under Section 324/34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was initially granted bail by a Magistrate. The Special Judge subsequently cancelled this bail, asserting that the weapon involved (a .30 bore pistol) rendered the offence triable exclusively by the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether a Special Court, prior to the submission of a challan or the case being formally entrusted to it, possesses the jurisdiction to cancel bail granted by a Magistrate under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Special Court acted without jurisdiction, as it cannot interfere with bail orders passed by other courts in cases not yet pending before it. The principle laid down is that a Special Court's power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is limited to cases pending before it, and it cannot exercise such authority over orders passed by Magistrates in non-scheduled or un-transferred cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to cancel bail granted by a Magistrate in a case where the challan has not yet been submitted to the Special Court?
  • Can a Special Court exercise the power of bail cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case not pending before it?
  • Is a Special Court authorized to interfere with bail orders passed by a Magistrate in cases that are not yet determined to be scheduled offences triable by the Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din and others vs Noora and others1998 CLC 330 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
• Naveed Sikandar vs Zafar Mehmood And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, WAPDA House Branch, Lahore vs Ittefaq1998 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and others1998 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mehmood Dar And Others vs Federation of Pakistan Ministry of Finance, Economic Affairs and Statistics, through Its Secretary, Islamabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1382 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood Dar and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PTD 3497 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood Dar and 27 others vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry1998 PTD 3906 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Nasir and others vs The State1998 MLD 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Trindah Muhammad Pinnah, District Rahimyar Khan1998 P Cr. L J 196 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice excessmotor vehicles ordinancecompensation for illegal detentionright to libertytransgression of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the recovery of four individuals allegedly held in illegal police custody. The core legal question concerned the legality of the police detaining a citizen for an alleged traffic violation and the unauthorized entry into a private residence. The Court held that the detention of the primary detenu was illegal, as Section 115, Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 empowers police to detain a vehicle, not to arrest the driver. The Court rejected the S.H.O.'s justification, finding the arrest was a transgression of authority and that the other three individuals had been released shortly before the Bailiff's arrival. The Court established that police officers possess no authority to arrest individuals under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 and that unauthorized entry into private homes without a warrant is unlawful. Emphasizing that illegal detention violates fundamental rights, the Court ordered the responsible officer to pay compensation to the victim, reinforcing that such abuses of power by law enforcement will not be tolerated.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 115, Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 authorize a police officer to arrest a person for a traffic violation?
  • Can a police officer enter a private house without a search warrant or the occupant's permission?
  • Is a police officer personally liable to pay compensation for the illegal detention of a citizen?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad alias Nasra and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-22Read full judgment →
• Naeem-Ud-Din Khan vs CH. Muhammad Akbar1998 P.C.T.L.R. 884 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-01Read full judgment →
• Nadeem alias Deema vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Nadar Ali vs Mst. Hussain Bibi and 5 others1998 MLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Wilshire Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1393 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co., Ltd. vs District Judge,K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 223 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Nishat Mills. vs Federation Of Pakistan Etc.PTCL 1998 CL. 396 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ghulam Muhammad Dosal and others vs Collector of Customs, etcPTCL 1998 CL. 513 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar vs Ghulam Raziq And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muzaff Ar vs Ghulam Raziq and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muti Ullah and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muteeullah vs Muhammad Jamshaid Iqbal1998 CLC 961 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mussarrat Afza vs Shaukat Iqbal, Deputy Commissioner, District1998 CLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08
  writ petitionforcible dispossessiondue process of lawproperty rightsillegal dispossessionverbal orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the high-handed and forcible dispossession of the petitioner from her residential house by the municipal and revenue authorities on the verbal orders of the Deputy Commissioner, who claimed the property was a government-funded community centre. The Lahore High Court examined the rival claims, the revenue records, and the alleged allocation of development funds. The core legal question was whether state authorities could summarily and forcibly dispossess a private citizen of immovable property on verbal orders without recourse to due process of law. Holding that the respondents failed to establish that any government funds were utilized on the petitioner's specific land, the Court ruled that the forcible dispossession without a show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or due process of law was completely without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily interfere with private property rights or take forcible possession of land through verbal directives without establishing their claim through due process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can state authorities forcibly dispossess a citizen of private property on verbal orders without resorting to due process of law?
  • Whether executive authorities can take over possession of property claimed to be built with government funds without a show-cause notice and hearing?
  • Is an action of dispossession sustainable when the authorities fail to establish their claim over the specific land in dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commerical Bank Ltd., Islamabad vs Rozwan Textile Mills Ltd., Islamabad and 8 others1998 MLD 529 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08
  recovery suitleave to defendconditional leavebank guaranteerescheduling of loanjurisdictionpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a recovery suit against the defendants (a textile mills company and its directors) for Rs. 35,76,64,262.68 under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The defendants sought leave to appear and defend, raising preliminary objections regarding the suit's maintainability, the competency of the bank's attorney, and the constitutional validity of the Act of 1997. On merits, they disputed the correctness of the accounts, asserted that certain rescheduled loans were not due until 2001, and claimed damages for the bank's failure to underwrite shares. The High Court held that the suit was properly instituted by a authorized attorney and that the Act of 1997 was validly enacted, replacing the temporary Ordinance. On merits, noting that the defendants had admitted a liability of Rs. 192.464 million in correspondence, the Court granted conditional leave to defend, subject to the defendants furnishing a bank guarantee for the admitted amount to safeguard the bank's financial interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a recovery suit instituted by a bank's Chief Manager holding a valid power of attorney is maintainable?
  • Whether the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 is ultra vires of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Banking Court grant conditional leave to defend subject to a bank guarantee where a defendant has admitted a specific portion of the outstanding liability in writing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq alias Niiku vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 158 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mushir Ahmad vs The State1998 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-04Read full judgment →
• Murid Ahmed vs Mst. Sahab Bibi and others1998 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muntazir and another vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Munshi Farooq Akhtar, Patwari vs The Assistant1998 PLC (C.S.) 49 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
• Munshi Farooq Akbar, Patwari, Halaqa Tatar, Sub-Division Okara, Distt., Okara vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Okara And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad and another vs The State1998 MLD 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad and 11 others vs Federation of. Pakistan through Secretary1998 PTD 3900 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmad vs The State1998 MLD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Munawar Masih vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad vs District Education Officer(M). Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Multan Glass Works, Multan vs Haji Muhammad Ramzan through Legal1988 MLD 266 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mukhtar and others vs The State and others1998 MLD 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 815 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The Province of Punjab through Collector, District1998 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman alias Yaqoob and others vs The State1998 MLD 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar and anothers vs Mst. Chanani Jan and 69 others1998 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 670 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad HussainK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 646 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Mst. Anis Bibi and 2 others1998 PLD Lahore 67 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Iqbal And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Anwar Bibi and others1998 MLD 147 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and 2 others vs Abdul Ghaffar and others1998 MLD 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-29
  additional evidenceappellate stageOrder 41 Rule 27 CPCcivil revisionjust decisiondocumentary evidenceprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioners' application for the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during the pendency of an appeal. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can refuse an application for additional evidence solely on the ground of delay without considering the importance and relevance of the document sought to be produced. The Lahore High Court held that if a document is indispensable, goes to the root of the case, and is necessary for a just and fair decision, delay alone is not a sufficient ground to dismiss the application, especially when the document was traced out later and its non-production was not intentional. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the production of the additional evidence before the appellate court, establishing that the advancement of the interest of justice overrides mere procedural delays in the production of crucial documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss an application for additional evidence solely on the ground of delay without assessing the importance of the document?
  • Whether additional evidence can be allowed at the appellate stage if the document was traced out during the pendency of the appeal?
  • Does the refusal to bring on record a document vital to the core merits of a case prejudice the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and another vs Muhammad Ayub and another1998 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni and others1998 P Cr. L J 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas and anothers vs Muhammad Siddique and another1998 CLC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 419 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 5 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 247 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirypolice investigationinnocenceheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 and subsequently governed by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the recovery of heroin from a truck driven by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted under section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when successive police investigations found the accused innocent and conflicting opinions existed among investigating officers regarding his complicity. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the prohibitory clauses against bail in narcotics cases, bail may be granted where the prima facie involvement of the accused is doubtful and conflicting police findings render the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where investigating agencies successively find an accused innocent and no active guilty knowledge is established regarding contraband carried by a passenger, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when conflicting police investigations create doubt as to the accused's involvement?
  • Does a finding of innocence by successive investigating officers constitute a ground for further inquiry under narcotics laws?
  • Is bail barred absolutely for offences under section 9 of the Anti-Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →