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.

• Balqees Malik vs Rana Muhammad Iftikhar-Ud-Din And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Khan and another vs Allah Wadhaya and 7 others1998 MLD 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bah Adur Khan vs Muhammad Siddique and others1998 CLC 724 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• B vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 266 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Asif Saigol and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through the Interior1998 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24
  Federal Investigation Agency jurisdictionscheduled bankcriminal breach of trustquashment of FIRState Bank of Pakistan controlpledged goods misappropriationmatters concerning the Federal Government
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, directors of a textile mill, sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered by the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) under sections 382 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code for alleged misappropriation of pledged cotton stocks. The core legal question was whether the FIA has the jurisdiction to investigate an offence involving a private scheduled bank when no direct federal government proprietary interest is present. The Lahore High Court held that because scheduled banks operate under the statutory control and regulatory supervision of the State Bank of Pakistan—which is itself controlled by the Federal Government—any offence committed in relation to a scheduled bank constitutes a matter concerning the Federal Government, thereby falling within the investigative ambit of the FIA. The court also held that subsequent amendments deleting certain penal provisions from the FIA schedule do not invalidate an investigation into past acts, and dismissed the petition while directing completion of the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed against private scheduled banks operating under the State Bank of Pakistan?
  • Whether the regulatory control of the State Bank of Pakistan brings a scheduled bank within the ambit of matters concerning the Federal Government under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974?
  • Do subsequent amendments deleting specific penal provisions from the schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 vitiate ongoing investigations into offenses committed prior to such deletion?
  • Can a criminal investigation be quashed merely on the ground that the dispute possesses civil elements when prima facie allegations of criminal misappropriation exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1998 CL. 617 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 31) · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Home Secretary and others1998 CLC 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs State1998 MLD 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Aruj Textile Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary1998 PTD 3855 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14
  Sales TaxDelegated LegislationUltra ViresRule-making PowerCentral Board of RevenueGinning Industry Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to a notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) which purported to amend the Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996. The core legal question was whether the CBR possessed the statutory authority to amend rules that were originally framed by the Federal Government under Section 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioners argued that since the Federal Government was the rule-making authority under the statute, the CBR lacked the power to amend these rules. The Lahore High Court held that the Sales Tax Act, 1990 grants the power to prescribe special procedures solely to the Federal Government, and the Act contains no provision authorizing the CBR to frame or amend such rules. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notification issued by the CBR to be ultra vires, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that an authority lacking the original rule-making power cannot amend or vary rules framed by the competent authority, absent specific statutory delegation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Central Board of Revenue have the authority to amend rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can an authority that did not issue the original notification or frame the original rules amend or vary them?
  • Is a notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue ultra vires if it amends rules that the Board lacks the statutory power to amend?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Zubair vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
• Arshad Sam1 Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1998 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsarbitrary exercise of poweradministrative discretionmala fidepublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a public servant designated as an Ambassador, challenged the inclusion of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Ministry of Interior. The order was issued based on an unverified complaint forwarded to the Ehtesab Cell, amidst a personal family dispute. The petitioner argued that the action was mala fide, lacked application of mind, and infringed upon his fundamental rights to freedom of movement and equal treatment. The court examined whether the Federal Government's power under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, was exercised lawfully. The court held that while the statute grants the government wide discretion to restrict travel without prior notice or disclosure of grounds, such power must not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or without conscious application of mind. Finding that the authorities acted merely as a conduit for an unverified complaint in a fluid situation, the court ruled the order unsustainable. The principle laid down is that restrictive laws affecting a citizen's liberty must be exercised with extreme care, transparency, and reasonableness, ensuring that discretion is not used to facilitate personal vendettas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of the Federal Government to place a person on the Exit Control List under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance 1981 allow for arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion?
  • Is the Federal Government required to apply its mind consciously when exercising its power to restrict a citizen's movement under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance 1981?
  • Can an unverified complaint, currently in a state of incubation, serve as a valid legal ground to deprive a citizen of their fundamental right to freedom of movement?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad and another1998 PTD 370 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad Imran Sulehri vs The Election Tribunal and others1998 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
• Arshad and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Arif vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Anwar Saleem vs Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore Bench, Lahore and others1998 PLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sheraz vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Amjid Farooque And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Amjad Farooq and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1590 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Amir through Legal vs Hasham through Legal Representatives1998 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs The District Magistrate, Chakwal and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Amanat vs The State1998 MLD 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
• Amanat And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Director of Agriculture (E & M), Punjab, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 586 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Allia Safdar vs University of Punjab and others1998 CLC 235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Jewaya and another vs Muhammad Bakhsh and another1998 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01
  revision petitionconcurrent findings of factadverse possessionpossessory suitlocal commissionerlimitationtitle to property
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for possession of land in favor of the respondent. The petitioner contested the respondent's title, argued the suit was barred by limitation due to adverse possession, and claimed prejudice regarding a local commissioner's report. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish title, the nature of long-term possession, and the procedural requirements for challenging a local commissioner's report. The Court held that the respondent’s title was established through documentary evidence and that the petitioners failed to prove adverse possession, as mere long-term possession does not automatically confer title against a true owner. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the right to cross-examine a local commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is discretionary and not absolute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, reiterating the principle that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction absent material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does long-term possession of property automatically constitute adverse possession against the true owner?
  • Is the right to cross-examine a local commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 an absolute right?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 20 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Mst. Naseem Mai and another1998 MLD 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02
  dissolution of marriagekhularestitution of conjugal rightsres judicatafamily court jurisdictionwrit jurisdictioncontinuing wrong
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The core legal questions concerned whether a prior ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights barred a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage under the principle of res judicata, and the extent of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to review factual findings regarding territorial jurisdiction and marital cruelty. The Court held that the petition was meritless, ruling that non-maintenance and non-performance of conjugal rights constitute continuing wrongs, thereby rendering res judicata inapplicable. The Court affirmed that Family Courts operate under an inquisitorial framework, prioritizing substantive justice over the strict technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, 1984. It established that the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should not act as an appellate court to re-examine factual findings—such as residence for territorial jurisdiction—unless they are perverse, based on insufficient evidence, or involve a patent error of law. The dissolution was upheld as the parties could no longer observe the limits of God.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights bar a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the principle of res judicata?
  • Is the principle of res judicata applicable to family disputes involving non-maintenance and non-performance of conjugal rights?
  • Should the High Court interfere with factual findings of a Family Court regarding territorial jurisdiction in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are the strict technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, 1984 applicable to proceedings before Family Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Maikan vs Chief Minister of Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Hamlani vs Inspectorgeneral and others1998 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bukhsh, Etc. vs (Mst.) Asmat Ara, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 690 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 3 otherss vs Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East1998 CLC 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19
  proprietary rightsaudi alteram partemnatural justiceadministrative lawwrit jurisdictionsub-tenantscoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which dismissed the petitioners' revision petitions regarding the conferment of proprietary rights over land. The petitioners, claiming rights as sub-tenants under a 1979 Notification, argued that their initial application was rejected by the Collector without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The core legal question was whether the administrative orders, passed without adhering to the principle of natural justice, were sustainable. The Court held that the Collector's order was passed behind the back of the petitioners, violating the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned orders illegal and void, setting them aside. The key principle laid down is that any administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting a party's rights, passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, is coram non judice and void. The Court remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector to decide the petitioners' applications afresh in accordance with the law and relevant precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Is an administrative order passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected party legally sustainable?
  • Does the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem render an administrative order void?
  • Are sub-tenants eligible for the conferment of proprietary rights under the 1979 Notification regarding state land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1998 MLD 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher alias Sher vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Asif vs Superintendent of Police, Hafizabad and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Qadar vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 24 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  Qatl-i-Amdjuvenile offenderDiyatTazirdeath sentence conversionocular evidencemedical corroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from convictions for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the validity of the defence’s plea of aggression, the appropriateness of the death sentence, and the sentencing of a juvenile offender. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular and medical evidence, rejecting the defence's improbable version of events. While maintaining the convictions, the Court converted the death sentence of the primary appellant to life imprisonment, noting the absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the occurrence. Regarding the juvenile appellant, the Court ruled that a trial judge’s subjective observation of age cannot override documentary evidence like a school certificate. Consequently, applying the principle that minors are exempt from Qisas for Qatl-i-Amd, the Court sentenced the juvenile to Diyat and Tazir imprisonment under sections 306 and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The judgment reinforces that medical corroboration of ocular testimony is critical and that statutory age definitions must be strictly applied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial judge's subjective observation of an accused's age override documentary evidence like a school certificate?
  • Is a minor offender liable to Qisas for Qatl-i-Amd under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does the absence of premeditation in a sudden quarrel justify the conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Shah vs Nasim Khan and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• Alhaj. Shahzadi Mumtaz Jahan and 2 others vs The Area Magistrate, Lahore Cantt North and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
• Akistan Chest Foundation (Regd.) through Its Chairman, Prof. DR.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 394 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmed vs Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and another1998 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Sessions Judge Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Waqar vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 844 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmadullah vs (Mst.) Sarder BibiK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar Chohan vs Federal Public Service Commission and 2 others1998 MLD 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06
  C.S.S. recruitmentprovincial quota systemfederal structurefundamental rights suspensionequality of opportunityproclamation of emergencyaffirmative action
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a challenge to the quota system used for Central Superior Services (C.S.S.) recruitment. The respondent challenged the validity of the regional/provincial quota system, arguing it violated constitutional provisions regarding equality. The Lahore High Court examined whether the quota system, which allocates vacancies based on provincial representation, remained valid after the expiration of the twenty-year period specified in Article 27 of the Constitution. The Court held that the quota system is essential to maintain the federal structure of Pakistan and ensure adequate representation of all federating units. Crucially, the Court noted that the enforcement of fundamental rights, including Articles 18, 25, and 27, was suspended due to the Proclamation of Emergency and a Presidential Order. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that equality is for equals and that relative equality permits affirmative action to mitigate social and regional disparities. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the Federal Government to proceed with appointments based on the established recruitment policy and regional quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of fundamental rights during a Proclamation of Emergency preclude challenges to the C.S.S. quota system?
  • Is the regional quota system for C.S.S. appointments consistent with the federal structure of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the state apply relative equality to justify reservations in public service appointments for under-represented regions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saleem, Inspector of Police (Presently Posted in Police Lines, Lahore) vs Ch. Muhammad Amin, Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others1998 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11
  quashment of FIRpolice investigationwrit jurisdictionsecond FIRmala fidesself-defenseconstitutional petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment of F.I.R. No. 212 of 1996 and the transfer of investigation, alleging that the police investigation into the murder of Fawad Riaz was mala fide. The petitioner, a police officer, argued that his actions were protected under statutory provisions regarding official duties and self-defense, and challenged the registration of a second F.I.R. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would not interfere with an ongoing police investigation or conduct a parallel inquiry, particularly when the investigation was complete and ready for submission to the trial court. The Court affirmed that allegations of mala fides are factual matters unsuitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, it held that the registration of a second F.I.R. is permissible in specific circumstances and that statutory defenses, such as self-defense, must be established by the accused during the trial, not through constitutional proceedings. The Court emphasized that it should not substitute its own findings for those of the investigating authorities, thereby maintaining the separation between investigative and judicial functions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with an ongoing police investigation in exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the registration of a second FIR permissible when the first FIR is found to be false or incomplete?
  • Should claims of self-defense or statutory immunity be adjudicated during the investigation stage or at trial?
  • Can allegations of mala fides regarding a police investigation be resolved through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Awan vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District1998 CLC 511 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Awan vs Deputy Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 778 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Agha Nadim and another vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, Lohari Gate, Lahore and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  quashment of FIRDrugs Act 1976Quality Control Boardprior permissionsubstandard drugsconstitutional jurisdictioncoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against the petitioners under the Drugs Act, 1976, concerning alleged spurious and substandard drug samples. The core legal question was whether a Drug Inspector is competent to lodge an F.I.R. for offences under the Drugs Act without obtaining prior permission from the Provincial Quality Control Board. The Court held that obtaining prior permission from the Quality Control Board as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976 and the Drug Rules is a condition precedent for registering a criminal case, and in the absence of such permission, the initiation of proceedings is without lawful authority, coram non judice, and mala fide. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings initiated under the Drugs Act, 1976 without the mandatory prior sanction of the Quality Control Board are illegal and liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an F.I.R. under the Drugs Act, 1976 can be registered without the prior permission of the Provincial Quality Control Board?
  • Does the failure to obtain prior permission from the Quality Control Board render criminal proceedings under the Drugs Act coram non judice?
  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. lodged in violation of mandatory statutory prerequisites under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Iqbal Janjua vs Managing-Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines1998 PLC (C.S.) 44 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Aftab Iqbal Janjua vs M.D. Sui Northern Gas, Pipelines Ltd., Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Adddl. District, Judge, Lahore vs Muhammad Younas(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 30) · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmad and others vs Munawwar Saeed1998 MLD 601 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-17
  specific performancetemporary injunctionbalance sale considerationbona fidesalienation of propertycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal from Order arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property. The defendant challenged the refusal of the trial court to modify this injunction by requiring the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance must deposit the balance sale price as a condition for obtaining a temporary injunction against the defendant. The High Court held that in suits for specific performance, it is equitable to subject a prohibitory order to the condition of depositing the balance sale price in court. This ensures the plaintiff's bona fides and protects the defendant from potential losses due to fluctuating real estate values. The Court established the principle that while granting temporary injunctions in such suits, courts should impose terms regarding the deposit of the balance consideration to balance the interests of both parties and prevent unnecessary litigation delays. The appeal was accepted, and the injunction was made conditional upon the deposit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court require a plaintiff in a specific performance suit to deposit the balance sale price as a condition for granting a temporary injunction?
  • Is the deposit of balance sale consideration a necessary requirement to demonstrate the bona fides of a plaintiff seeking specific performance?
  • Should a temporary injunction restraining the alienation of property be modified if the plaintiff fails to show readiness to pay the balance sale consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Collector of Customs Dryport, Faisalabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1377 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Collector of Customs and others1998 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shah alias Babar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11
  bank dacoityidentification paradeweapon recoverychain of custodycriminal appealacquittalexclusive possessionevidence admissibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of Abdullah Shah alias Babar Ali and Asif Mahmood for their alleged involvement in a bank dacoity and murder, alongside an appeal by the State against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of identification parades conducted after significant delays and the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries made from joint-family premises without independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. It found that the identification parades were fundamentally flawed because the investigating officer possessed photographs of the accused, which were shown to witnesses prior to the parades, thereby destroying their sanctity. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was inadmissible as corroborative evidence because it was found in a place accessible to multiple residents, lacking proof of the accused's exclusive possession, and because the chain of custody regarding the crime empties was broken. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that incriminating evidence must be free from procedural irregularities to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of an accused's photograph by the investigating officer prior to an identification parade invalidate the identification process?
  • Can a weapon recovery be used as corroborative evidence if the item was recovered from a place accessible to multiple residents without proof of the accused's exclusive possession?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the chain of custody for crime empties is broken due to the failure to produce the official responsible for their initial handling?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Kh. Muhammad Usman Asghar1998 CLC 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahas vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 3 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Subhan vs Haji Ashiq Muhammad through Legal Heirs1998 CLC 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor Saqi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 324 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Punjab and others1998 MLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and 3 others vs Sultan Mahmood Akbar and 3 others1998 CLC 497 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and 13 others vs Sher Muhammad1998 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Qamar and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mogees and others vs M.C., Kasur and others1998 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid alias Fauji and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid (Deceased) through Legal Representatives vs SH. BashirK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 163 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 399 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Anjum vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab1998 PLC (C.S.) 839 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22
  deputationtransfercivil servantvested rightwrit petitionmisuse of government vehiclesadministrative policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Professor on deputation as Secretary of the Punjab Board of Technical Education, challenged his transfer order issued before the completion of his three-year tenure. He alleged that the transfer was mala fide and retaliatory due to his reporting of financial irregularities by the Board Chairman. The respondents contended that the transfer was an administrative necessity due to internal conflict and that the petitioner lacked a vested right to remain on deputation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that a civil servant on deputation does not possess a vested right to continue in that position for the full tenure and is subject to recall by the borrowing department in accordance with established policy. The Court further observed that the transfer was consistent with the relevant Office Memorandum governing deputation. Additionally, the Court took judicial notice of the widespread misuse of government vehicles, issuing guidelines for their proper allocation and usage, and directed the Chief Secretary to formulate a clear policy to curb such practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to continue on deputation for the full tenure?
  • Can a civil servant maintain a constitutional petition against a transfer order from a deputation post?
  • Is a transfer order of a deputationist valid if it complies with the borrowing department's policy, even if issued before the expiry of the deputation tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kasim vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1998 PLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  Payment of Wages Actdelayed wagescompensation limitsstatutory jurisdictionlabour lawrevisional jurisdictionretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside a compensation award granted by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Authority had originally awarded the petitioner his retirement benefits plus Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental torture and litigation delay. The Labour Appellate Tribunal, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the compensation portion. The High Court examined whether the Authority possessed the power to grant lump-sum compensation for mental torture and litigation costs. Upon analyzing Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Court held that the Authority’s power to award compensation is strictly circumscribed by statute. In cases of delayed wages, the Authority is limited to awarding a maximum of ten rupees, regardless of the perceived inadequacy of that amount in contemporary times. The Court affirmed that the Authority, being a creature of statute, cannot exceed its defined jurisdiction to award damages for mental torture or litigation costs. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to recall the compensation award.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have the jurisdiction to award lump-sum compensation for mental torture and litigation costs?
  • What is the maximum compensation limit the Authority can award in cases of delayed wages under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Are orders passed by a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 subject to revision by the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Nazir Ahmad1998 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14
  summary suitleave to appear and defendservice of summonslimitation periodproper serviceCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for recovery filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court dismissed the appellant-defendant's application for leave to appear and defend the suit due to a delay in filing, subsequently decreeing the suit against him. The core legal question was whether the service of summons upon the defendant was legally sufficient to trigger the limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that the plaint was not attached to the summons. The Lahore High Court held that in a summary suit, proper service requires the summons to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint to effectively apprise the defendant of the claim. Without the plaint, the defendant cannot be expected to move expeditiously for leave to defend. Consequently, the Court ruled that the service was improper, the limitation period did not commence, and the application for leave to defend was not time-barred. The impugned decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to attach a copy of the plaint to the summons in a summary suit constitute improper service?
  • Can the limitation period for filing an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit commence if the defendant has not been served with a copy of the plaint?
  • Is a decree passed in a summary suit sustainable if the defendant was not properly served with the plaint along with the summons?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The State1998 MLD 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq and another vs State and another1998 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Abdul Karim and 6 others1998 MLD 188 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs State1998 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Kausar vs Habib Bank Limited and others1998 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Chaudhry vs Naseem Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Awan vs Tax Recovery Officer-04, Coys Zone, Income1998 PTD 874 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Awan vs Tax Recovery Officer-04 Coys Zone Income1998 P.C.T.L.R. 440 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and another vs The State1998 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Hameeda Bano1998 CLC 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30
  evacuee propertypermanent transfer deedcivil court jurisdictionlimitationbona fide purchaserdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over a plot of land originally claimed by the respondent-plaintiff as a pre-independence purchase, which was later transferred as evacuee property to a third party and subsequently purchased by the appellant via a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of property treated as evacuee property and whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that once land is declared evacuee property and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) is issued, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to declare it non-evacuee, and that the plaintiff's suit filed decades later was barred by time. The court established the principle that questions of limitation must be taken cognizance of by courts, and suits challenging settled property transfers long after the issuance of a P.T.D. are untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to declare a property as non-evacuee after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued by the settlement authorities?
  • Is a suit for declaration and possession filed long after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed barred by limitation?
  • Can a court take cognizance of the question of limitation suo motu based on the pleadings of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1998 PLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →