Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mst. Rehmat Ara vs Mehmood Ul Hassan and another1998 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Bibi vs Insarul Haq and 11 others1998 CLC 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen Akhtar and 2 others vs Muhammad Abdullah Mahmood1998 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazran Bibi vs Shamira and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen vs State1998 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, who stands accused of murder. The core legal question presented to the Court was whether a female accused, despite facing a serious criminal charge, is entitled to the grant of bail on the specific humanitarian ground that she has a suckling child who requires her care and should not suffer the hardships of incarceration due to the alleged actions of the mother. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that the welfare of the suckling child constitutes a sufficient and compelling ground for the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and enlarged the accused on bail, subject to the provision of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of a suckling child is a paramount consideration in criminal proceedings, and the child should not be made to suffer in jail for the alleged offences committed by the mother, thereby justifying the release of the mother on bail.
Questions settled- Is the presence of a suckling child a sufficient ground for the grant of bail to a mother accused of murder?
- Should a child be made to suffer in jail for the alleged crimes of their mother?
- Mst. Nasira Bibi vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Nasira Bibi, who was charged with drug trafficking under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of heroin. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of mala fides, lack of independent witnesses, and her status as a woman with a suckling infant, arguing that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court examined the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which restricts the grant of bail for narcotic offences. The Court held that while the offence might not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, this does not create an automatic right to bail given the specific mandate of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court ruled that gender alone does not entitle a female accused to bail in serious offences, especially where the law explicitly restricts it. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail in narcotic cases?
- Does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, override the general provisions regarding bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a female accused automatically entitled to the grant of bail in serious narcotic offences merely by virtue of her gender?
- Mst. Naheed Kausar and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 570 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Masood Begum vs Muhammad Maroof and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 56 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were accused of murdering a young lady by burning. The lower court had granted bail primarily relying on the opinion of police officers who questioned the credibility of witnesses and the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether the court could rely on police opinion to grant bail and whether such opinion justified a finding of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the lower court improperly abdicated its judicial function by adopting the police's speculative assessment. The Court ruled that police opinions are not binding and cannot substitute for independent judicial appraisal. It emphasized that at the bail stage, courts must perform a tentative assessment of incriminating material rather than conducting a deep, premature evaluation of evidence. Consequently, the bail order was recalled, establishing that judicial discretion must be exercised independently of police investigation reports.
Questions settled- Can a court grant bail in a murder case based solely on the opinion of police officers regarding the credibility of witnesses?
- Is the opinion of police officers regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does the 'further inquiry' provision under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a court to conduct a deep appraisal of evidence at the bail stage?
- Mst. Majeedan and another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner with1998 MLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lal Khatoon vs Judge Family Court, Hasilpur and another1998 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lal Khatoon vs Judge Family Court Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 769 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khursheed Bibi vs The State1998 MLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs Shaukat Hussain and others1998 MLD 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs The State and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janat Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 6 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Sajjad vs Syed Farzand Ali and 2 others1998 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussain Bibi vs Siraj Din1998 PLD Lahore 548 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of lower courts decreeing a suit for mesne profits. The petitioner argued that a separate suit for mesne profits was barred by constructive res judicata and the provisions of Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly since the execution of the original pre-emption decree had become time-barred. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the limitation period for executing a decree bars the remedy, it does not extinguish the underlying right or title to the property. The Court further clarified that the procedural bars under Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 do not apply to pre-emption suits because the plaintiff's title is only established upon the passing of the pre-emption decree, rendering it impossible to claim mesne profits in the original suit. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to seek mesne profits in a separate proceeding, provided the claim fell within the statutory limitation period.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of the limitation period for executing a decree for possession extinguish the underlying title to the property?
- Are the provisions of Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to pre-emption suits regarding the claim for mesne profits?
- Can a separate suit for mesne profits be maintained if the execution of the original decree for possession has become time-barred?
- Is a defendant in a pre-emption suit liable for mesne profits for the period prior to the passing of the pre-emption decree?
- Mst. Hina Ikhlaq vs Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate1998 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Station House Officer and others1998 P Cr. L J 140 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the custody of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remains maintainable when proceedings regarding the guardianship and custody of the same minor are already pending before a competent Guardian Judge. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, reasoning that jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is intended for emergency, stop-gap arrangements and is not designed to pre-empt or substitute the jurisdiction of a Guardian Court. The Court emphasized that the Guardian Judge is the appropriate forum for determining custody disputes and possesses sufficient authority under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 to regulate custody and ensure the welfare of the minor. Consequently, the Court declined to intervene, directing the parties to pursue their remedies before the Guardian Judge, while noting that any order passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is merely tentative and subject to the final determination of the Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Is a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, maintainable when guardianship proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Judge?
- What is the nature of an order passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
- Does a Guardian Judge have the authority to regulate the custody of a minor during pending proceedings?
- Mst. Hameeda Bibi And Other vs Rashid Ahmad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 580 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hameeda Bibi and 3 other vs Atta Ullah, Advocate1998 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for joint possession of land in favor of the respondent. The respondent claimed a share in the estate of the deceased, Ibrahim, and challenged a mutation of gift in favor of the petitioners as fake and void. The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that where a transaction is challenged as void ab initio, rather than voidable, the aggrieved party is not required to seek cancellation of the instrument; thus, Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, providing a six-year limitation period. The Court further affirmed that for a valid gift under Islamic law, the essential ingredients of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession must be proven. Since the petitioners failed to establish these elements and the evidence showed the deceased retained possession until death, the Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the gift was non-existent and inoperative.
Questions settled- Does Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit challenging a transaction as void ab initio?
- What are the essential ingredients required to complete a valid gift under Islamic law?
- Can a suit for declaration be filed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 when a party denies being a party to a transaction?
- Does the failure to prove the delivery of possession invalidate a gift?
- Mst. Ghafooran and 5 others vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fauzia Shah vs CH. Shabbir Muhammad, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Charagh Bibi vs (Mst.) Meraj Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Begum vs Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi Div, Rawalpindi And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Begum vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 others1998 MLD 442 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhat Amna vs S.H.O., City Lodhran1998 P Cr. L J 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst, Janna T Bibi vs Faqir Muhammad1998 MLD 837 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner, Mst. Jannat Bibi, claiming to be the owner in possession of two houses, and alleging that a registered sale-deed dated 18-2-1974 in favor of her former husband, the respondent Faqir Muhammad, was forged, fraudulent, and without consideration, executed while her father was paralyzed and incompetent. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud and that the statutory presumption of truth attached to the registered sale-deed stood unrebutted. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that while a registered document carries a rebuttable presumption of registration, the mere production of a certified copy does not suffice to prove the execution and contents of the document in accordance with the law of evidence, and that the burden shifted to the beneficiary (the defendant) to prove the truth and valid execution of the transaction, which he miserably failed to do.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the production of a certified copy of a registered sale-deed alone satisfy the legal requirement to prove the execution and contents of the document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- How does the burden of proof shift between parties in civil proceedings under Articles 117, 118, and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether the failure to attach copies of subordinate court pleadings and documents at the presentation of a revision petition constitutes an incurable fatal defect leading to its dismissal?
- Mst Aalood Mai and another vs S.H.O., P.S., Fazilpur, District Rajanpur1998 MLD 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Surayya Farman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 958 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of a criminal case registered under section 18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, pending before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), Rawalpindi. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court could take cognizance of an offence under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 upon a police report or challan submitted by the Federal Investigating Agency without a proper written complaint by an authorized person under section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, and whether oral testimony alone without documentary evidence is sufficient to sustain a charge under section 22 of the said Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that a report submitted by the Federal Investigating Agency under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be treated as a complaint, and the Special Court is barred from taking cognizance except upon a written complaint accompanied by the previous sanction of the Federal Government pursuant to section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the Court held that mere oral assertions of receiving money for foreign employment without supporting documentary evidence are insufficient to establish an offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, and continuing proceedings based on a civil contract dispute constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Questions settled- Can a Special Court take cognizance of an offence under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 upon a police challan or report submitted by the Federal Investigating Agency without a formal complaint under section 24(6) of the Ordinance?
- Is oral evidence alone, in the absence of documentary proof, sufficient to substantiate a charge of receiving money for foreign employment under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979?
- Does a failure to fulfill a commitment or contract to provide foreign employment automatically constitute a criminal offence under section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 rather than a civil breach of contract?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings directly without first requiring the petitioner to approach the trial court under section 265-K or 249-A?
- Mrs. Naseem Rashid Mirza vs Municipal Committee, Okara through Chairman and another1998 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Inamulhaq vs Director, Anti-Corruption, Lahore and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Atta vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 634 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mohib Shah, Etc. vs (Mst.) Janna T Bibi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23Read full judgment →
- Miss Hadia Awan, Advocate vs Chairman, Punjab Public Service1998 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mirza Muhammad Anwar Baig vs Farkhanda Nasreen And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mirza Maqsood Baig vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mirza Khan Talpur and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 9 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mir Aimal Kansi vs The State and 5 others1998 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs Special Court and others1998 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mian Khizar Hayat vs Secretary Forest, Government of Punjab, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mian Iftikhar vs Province of Punjab and another1998 CLC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mian Ghulam Farid vs District Magistrate, Vehari and others1998 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mian Abuzar vs Naseer Ahmed Bhatti and others1998 P Cr. L J 145 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Wilshire Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan1998 PTD 3061 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Waheed Corporation (Regd.) vs Capital Development1998 PTD 3863 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Wah Industries Limited, Wah Cantt., District Rawalpindi vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside a labour court's dismissal of a grievance petition and remanding the matter for fresh decision. The employee, dismissed for misconduct involving missing cartridges from the petitioner-company (Wah Industries Limited, functioning as a sales department for Pakistan Ordnance Factories), had challenged his dismissal under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concerned whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 applied to the petitioner-company's service in view of section 1(3)(a), and whether a dismissed employee whose removal was unrelated to an industrial dispute could maintain a grievance petition as a workman. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner-company, being connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces and Pakistan Ordnance Factories, falls squarely within the exclusion of section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Furthermore, a dismissed employee whose dismissal is not connected with an industrial dispute does not qualify as a workman to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A. The petition was accepted and the Appellate Tribunal's order was declared without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 applies to services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces or an Ordnance Factory under section 1(3)(a)?
- Does Wah Industries Limited, acting as a sales department for Pakistan Ordnance Factories, fall within the exclusion of section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a dismissed employee maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 if their dismissal is unrelated to an industrial dispute?
- Does the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal possess the inherent power to remand a case while exercising appellate jurisdiction?
- Messrs Tripple Em (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director vs The Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others1998 CLC 187 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the customs authorities' refusal to grant an inbonding facility for imported goods, which resulted in the goods remaining at the Dry Port for 27 days and sustaining damage due to exposure. The petitioner sought a refund of customs duties paid under protest on the damaged goods. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the refusal to inbond, the entitlement to duty remission for damage caused by administrative delay, and the maintainability of a constitutional petition despite the existence of an alternative appellate remedy. The Court held that the refusal to inbond without a written, speaking order was arbitrary and unlawful. Furthermore, because the damage occurred directly due to this unlawful administrative delay, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of duties paid on the damaged goods. The Court also established that where authorities have already expressed a negative view on the merits, rendering an appeal futile, a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable. The judgment emphasizes that statutory powers requiring recorded reasons must be exercised through speaking orders.
Questions settled- Is an order refusing an inbonding facility under Section 84 of the Customs Act 1969 valid if it is not a speaking order with recorded reasons?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when the alternative appellate remedy is rendered futile by the authorities' pre-determined stance?
- Is an importer entitled to remission of customs duties for goods damaged due to an unlawful delay in granting inbonding facilities by customs authorities?
- Messrs Tahseen (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Additional Collector of Customs1998 PTD 2561 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of five constitutional petitions filed by M/s. Tahseen (Pvt.) Limited, challenging the levy of sales tax on diesel engine components imported from China through Pakistani ports for use in its manufacturing factory located in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The core legal question was whether goods imported into Pakistan but destined for and utilized in AJK are subject to sales tax under Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and whether AJK can be treated similarly to Afghanistan under transit trade agreements. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that once goods are brought into the territorial limits of Pakistan, they constitute 'goods imported into Pakistan' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, regardless of their ultimate destination. The Court laid down the principle that exemption from taxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right or by mere presumption, and unless the Federal Government grants a specific statutory exemption, goods imported through Pakistan for AJK remain liable to sales tax.
Questions settled- Are goods imported through Pakistan but destined for Azad Jammu and Kashmir subject to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Can Azad Jammu and Kashmir be treated at par with an independent foreign country like Afghanistan for the purpose of tax-exempt transit trade?
- Can exemption from the levy of sales tax be claimed as a matter of right without a specific statutory notification by the Government?
- Messrs Strong Built Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Fauji Fertilizer1998 MLD 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a first appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the rejection of an application filed under Section 20 of the same Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual pre-condition requiring disputes to be referred to the owner for a final and binding decision is valid, whether a specified arbitration venue ousts the trial court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whether a prior notice is mandatory under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and whether a single application concerning multiple agreements between the same parties is maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that a party cannot be a judge in its own cause, rendering provisions making the owner's decision final and binding void as violating principles of natural justice. It further held that contractual venue clauses cannot oust statutory jurisdiction, that Section 20 of the Arbitration Act does not require a prior notice unlike Section 8, and that a single application covering multiple related contracts is maintainable under principles analogous to Order I Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Whether a contractual clause making the owner's decision final and binding on a dispute is valid under the principles of natural justice?
- Does a contractual specification of an arbitration venue oust the territorial jurisdiction of a court under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Is a prior notice mandatory for filing an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can a single application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be maintained for multiple contracts between the same parties involving common questions of law and fact?
- Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. through General Manager, Islamabad vs District Judge, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the District Judge directing a subordinate court to decide a suit for possession within a specific timeframe. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without hearing them, lacked reasons, and was issued without jurisdiction. The High Court examined the District Judge's authority and held that while the District Judge possesses certain powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the issuance of such directions in this specific matter exceeded their jurisdiction, particularly without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, authorities exercising executive powers are legally obligated to provide reasons for their orders. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. However, invoking its own supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, the High Court directed the trial court to consolidate and decide both pending suits between the parties expeditiously by a specified date, ensuring the right to a timely disposal of causes.
Questions settled- Does a District Judge have the jurisdiction to issue directions for the expeditious disposal of a suit pending in a subordinate court where the appellate jurisdiction lies with the High Court?
- Are authorities exercising executive powers legally obligated to provide reasons for their orders under the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Can the High Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to direct the consolidation and expeditious disposal of suits pending before a subordinate court?
- Messrs Select Sports A.S. Company vs Messrs Tempo EnterprisesK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rhone and Poulence Rorer Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Wah1998 PLC 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ravi Spinning Limited vs The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax_ Wealth Tax (S.O. II), Companies Zone-I, Lahore and 2 others1998 PTD 3947 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Moon Industrial Chemical vs Secretary, Excise & Taxation and others1998 MLD 659 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Moin Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Rawalpindi through Sardar Alam, Director1998 PTD 2557 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Millat Bottle Store, Faisalabad vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2555 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Jaycee Pipe Agencies vs Messrs Jahangir Chemicals and Plastic1998 MLD 115 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Inpaktech Industries (Pvt:) Ltd vs Government of Punjab1998 MLD 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Ltd. vs Sui Northern Gas1998 CLC 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves three Intra-Court Appeals arising from a writ petition concerning the award of a contract for the supply of steel line pipes by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (S.N.G.P.L.) and a controversial stipulation regarding sales tax liability. The core legal questions addressed whether S.N.G.P.L. is amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whether contractual obligations can be enforced through a writ, and whether the stores supplied were exempt from sales tax or if the purchaser could legally assume the sales tax liability. The Lahore High Court held that although S.N.G.P.L. is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984, the lifting of its corporate veil reveals that it is substantially controlled and funded by the Federal Government and performs public functions, making it a state instrumentality subject to judicial review under Article 199. Furthermore, the court held that the contract prices quoted by the supplier were inclusive of all taxes, that section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 did not apply to shift the tax burden, and that the management's decision to shoulder the sales tax liability exceeded the Board of Directors' resolution and was unlawful. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can contractual obligations and disputes arising from commercial contracts entered into by state-controlled corporations be enforced or examined through writ jurisdiction?
- Whether section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 permits a vendor to shift the burden of sales tax to the purchaser when the tax was already in existence at the time of contract finalization?
- Whether the management of a corporate entity can alter the terms of a tender and assume tax liabilities without the express authorization of its Board of Directors?
- Muhammad Bahadur vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Essem Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Capital Development1998 CLC 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order of the Capital Development Authority demanding payment of outstanding premium dues and delayed payment charges on a plot allotted for constructing a 5-Star Hotel in Islamabad, failing which the allotment would be cancelled. The core legal questions revolved around whether an allottee can be penalized with delayed payment charges when actual physical possession of the plot was not delivered and it remained embroiled in third-party litigation and encroachments, and whether reciprocal contractual obligations permit a party to demand performance while being in default. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner could not be burdened with financial liabilities or penalized for delays caused by litigation and encroachments, or for the inactions of the respondent-Authority in delivering a clear title and physical possession. The Court laid down the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or the acts of others to penalize another, that contractual terms must be read harmoniously, and that a party failing to deliver possession free from encumbrances cannot lawfully demand delayed payment charges.
Questions settled- Can an allottee of land be penalized with delayed payment charges when the respondent-Authority fails to deliver actual physical possession free from encroachments and litigation?
- Whether the time spent on litigation initiated by third parties in respect of an allotted plot can be utilized by the allotting authority to the detriment of the allottee?
- Does the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong apply to prevent a statutory authority from demanding premium instalments without fulfilling its obligation to deliver clear title?
- Whether the non-delivery of physical possession of a plot justifies withholding balance premium payments without attracting penal surcharges?
- Messrs Bashir Engineering Industries Limited and otherss vs Messrs1998 CLC 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging an interim order passed by the Special Judge Banking, which granted the petitioners conditional leave to defend a suit upon the deposit of the suit amount, while granting the respondent-Bank unconditional leave to defend a counter-suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction against an interim order and whether the trial court’s imposition of a deposit condition was legally sustainable. The High Court held that while judicial review is generally not exercised against interim orders, it is permissible where such orders are arbitrary, fanciful, oppressive, or passed in disregard of relevant factors. The court found that the Special Judge failed to consider that the loan was already secured by an equitable mortgage, rendering the condition of deposit oppressive. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as being without lawful authority, and the leave applications were remanded for fresh determination in accordance with established legal principles regarding the grant of leave to defend.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an interim order passed by a subordinate court?
- Under what circumstances can an interim order be challenged as being arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive?
- Is the existence of an equitable mortgage a relevant factor for a court to consider when deciding whether to grant conditional or unconditional leave to defend a suit?
- Messrs Ashraf Sugar Mills vs Central Board of Revenue and others1998 PTD 3856 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ali & Works vs Tax Recovery1998 PTD 3697 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
- Mehram Ali Alias Yawar Ali vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 506 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mehram Ali alias Yawar Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1998 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mehar Din vs Ghafooran BibiK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Iqbal vs State1998 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
- Maula Bakhsh vs Muhammad Saleem and 9 others1998 MLD 567 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad and others vs The State and others1998 MLD 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed and another vs The State1998 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed alias Koola vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision was filed against the orders of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, which recalled a prior acquittal order passed in favor of the petitioner and summoned him to face a fresh trial. The petitioner had been acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a predecessor judge whose appointment was subsequently declared invalid by the High Court in a separate, collateral proceeding. The core legal questions were whether the de facto doctrine protects the judicial acts of a judge whose appointment is subsequently found to be defective, and whether a final acquittal can be set aside for a fresh trial without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, holding that the de facto doctrine is a doctrine of necessity that validates the acts of officers acting under the colour of lawful authority to prevent public chaos. The Court further held that a final acquittal cannot be collaterally attacked or undone, as it is protected by Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Does the de facto doctrine validate the judgments and orders passed by a judge whose appointment is subsequently discovered to be defective or invalid?
- Can the title or qualification of a presiding judge be challenged in collateral proceedings rather than through a direct proceeding like a writ of quo warranto?
- Does the subsequent declaration of a trial judge's disqualification permit the retrial of an accused who was already acquitted by that judge before the declaration?
- Is a trial court barred by Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from recalling its own final order of acquittal?
- Manzoor Hussain vs Malkhan Khewat No.40 through Shukar Din and 31998 PLD Lahore 172 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's remand order which set aside the trial court's dismissal of a declaration and injunction suit, allowed a plaint amendment, impleaded the District Collector as a party, and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The Lahore High Court examined the legality of amending plaints at the appellate stage, the necessity of adding revenue functionaries as parties in revenue record suits, and the proper procedure for remanding cases under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that while an appellate court is competent to allow a necessary plaint amendment at the appellate stage, the Collector is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit concerning entries in the revenue record between rival claimants. Furthermore, the Court held that a mechanical remand of a case under Order 41 Rule 23-A without reversing the trial court's findings on merits is illegal, and that appellate courts should instead utilize provisions like Order 41 Rule 25 or Rule 28 to record additional evidence or issues while keeping the appeal pending. The revision was partly allowed, upholding the amendment of the plaint while setting aside the impleadment of the Collector and the remand order.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can allow an amendment to the plaint at the appellate stage?
- Is the Collector or revenue functionary a necessary or proper party in a suit challenging entries in the revenue record?
- Under what circumstances can a case be remanded under Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appellate court remand a case without reversing the findings of the trial court on merits?
- Manzoor Hussain and others vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1998 PLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Province of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Shad vs I. H. Qureshi Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 27) · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Malik TM Din vs The S.H.O. and others1998 MLD 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
- Malik Sakhi Muhammad and anothers vs Zila Council, Rahimyar Khan1998 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
- Malik Sabir Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 230 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Malik Nazir Ahmad vs Mazhar Hussain and others1998 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-05Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Shahzad vs The Superintendent, Darulaman, Bahawalpur and another1998 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the release of Mst. Rabia Bano from Dar-ul-Aman, alleging illegal detention. The petitioner claimed a valid marriage, while the detenue’s father had registered a criminal case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, leading a Magistrate to place the detenue in Dar-ul-Aman upon determining her to be a minor. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, should determine the disputed age of the detenue and the validity of the marriage to order her release. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of age and the validity of marriage are disputed questions of fact that must be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction through evidence, rather than in summary proceedings. The Court affirmed that detention in Dar-ul-Aman pending such resolution is not illegal. It established that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass ordinary legal channels or to facilitate potential abuses of process involving illicit relationships, emphasizing that legal interpretations must align with Islamic principles.
Questions settled- Can a High Court determine the age of a detenue and the validity of a marriage in a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the detention of a minor in Dar-ul-Aman by order of a Magistrate considered illegal detention under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of a marriage in constitutional or habeas corpus proceedings?
- Maleek alias Malika vs The State1998 MLD 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
- Majid Iqbal vs Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 19) · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
- Maj.Gen. Zaheerulislam Abbasi and another vs Federation of Pakistan1998 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Maj. General Zahir-Ul-Islam Abbasi vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 177 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mahram Hayat Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Majid, Director, Asia Flour Mills BWP (Pvt.) Ltd., Bahawalpur vs The State and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a District Magistrate's order prohibiting the movement of wheat and wheat products outside the revenue limits of Rahimyar Khan District, arguing it violated Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the freedom of inter-provincial trade and commerce. The core legal question was whether such an executive order, issued under the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, constituted an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The Court held that the impugned order was a valid regulatory measure in the public interest, not an unconstitutional restriction on inter-provincial trade. The Court reasoned that the freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 151 is not absolute and must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions, allowing for reasonable, non-discriminatory regulatory measures. The holding established that the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit in the public interest, and that temporary, reasonable restrictions on the movement of essential commodities to prevent hoarding and scarcity do not violate the constitutional guarantee of free trade.
Questions settled- Does the freedom of trade and commerce under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 imply an absolute right free from all regulatory measures?
- Can a Provincial Government or its delegate prohibit the movement of essential foodstuffs in the public interest without violating the Constitution?
- Is the power to regulate trade inclusive of the power to prohibit the movement of goods?
- Does an executive order restricting the movement of wheat products within a district constitute an unconstitutional impediment to inter-provincial trade?
- Mahboob Ali vs The State1998 MLD 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
- Madina Traders vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 CLC 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
- M. A. Faiz Baluch vs The Chief Commissioner (the Appellate Court), Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and 4 others1998 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. Noor Alam Lodhi vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Etc(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 28) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs State1998 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, convicting Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Akram under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting their co-accused Niamat Ali. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony regarding a sudden dispute over lease money and tractor installments, the admissibility and effect of the accused's first version stated to the investigating officer, the availability of the right of private defense and grave and sudden provocation, and the requirement of corroboration for maintaining convictions when the prosecution's motive fails. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's set motive was shrouded in mystery and the acquittal of Niamat Ali was justified, but the participation of the remaining appellants was corroborated by forensic ballistics matching crime empties with recovered weapons and admissions made in defense suggestions. The Court laid down that an accused's first version given to police during investigation can be brought on record through cross-examination, and dismissed both the appeal and the revision, maintaining the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Can an accused's first version given to the investigating officer during the course of investigation be brought on record through cross-examination?
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove motive necessitates the outright rejection of the entire prosecution case or requires independent corroboration?
- Does a person who arrives at the scene of an incident after a beating has already taken place qualify for the benefit of grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a suggestion put to a prosecution witness by the defense and admitted by the witness considered sufficient proof of the facts suggested?
- Lahore Development Authority/Traffic Engineering and Transport1998 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
- Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Society Limited vs Muhammad Asif1998 MLD 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant civil revision petition arose from an interim order passed by the trial court rejecting the petitioner-society's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint filed by a non-member for specific performance and alternative reliefs. The core legal question was whether the mandatory notice requirement under Section 70 and the arbitration provisions under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 apply to a suit instituted by a non-member against a co-operative housing society. The Lahore High Court held that Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 are complementary and designed to govern internal disputes involving members, past members, officers, or agents, and do not extend to contractual transactions with outsiders or non-members. Consequently, a non-member is not required to issue a statutory notice under Section 70 before filing a civil suit against a society, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming the trial court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 apply to a suit filed by a non-member against a co-operative society?
- Whether the arbitration provisions under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 cover contractual transactions entered into by a society with an outsider or non-member?
- Can a civil court exercise jurisdiction over a suit instituted by a non-member against a co-operative society without the prior service of a notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?