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.

• Abbas Baig vs The State1998 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 943 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-08Read full judgment →
• A vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Crimiiial Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• (M_S.) Wak Orient Power & Light Limited, through, Chief Executive vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power, through Its Secretary, Islamabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 745 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Tripple Em (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director vs The1998 P.C.T.L.R. 608 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Taj Begum vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, LocalK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Serv ices Cases 110 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shameema Khatoon & Other vs Haji Murad Ali & Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 45) · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sajida Perveen vs Ashiq Ali & OtherK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Noshin Akram vs Mian Abdur Rauf, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Manzoor Mai vs SHO., Shujaabad Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 190 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Haleem Khatoon vs Sultan Bib, Etc.(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 49) · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Farrukh Begum vs Shaukat Jeelani Khan And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 10) · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Shaheena Iqbal vs Federation of PakistanK.LR. 1998 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Seetan And Other vs MirzaK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• (Mrs.) Inam-Ul-Haq vs The Director, Anti-Corruption Farid Kot House, Lahore, EtcK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Dr.) Samina Younas vs Govt. of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Sen ice Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Iqbal, Asst. Director HealthK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Iftikar Ahmad Minhas vs (Mst.) Aisha Mahmood And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Hafeezullah Chaudhary vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Health Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-10Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Abdul Rehman Chaudhary Chairman Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 603 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Brig.) Retd. Imtiaz .Ahmad vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar And Others vs Mst. Kausar And Other1997 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Recruitment1997 PLC (C.S.) 135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
• Zubair Shah vs The State1997 MLD 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Zilladar Haq Nawaz Shaheen Alias Shaheen vs Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad And Another1997 CLC 319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zia Shahid vs Sh. Rafiq Ahmad And Other1997 CLC 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Zakim Khan Mahsood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• Zahida Bano vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 662 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad And Another vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, LahoreAnd 5 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad and another vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1339 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
• Younis Mayo and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 925 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Javaid vs Province of Punjab Through Additional Chief1997 PLC (C.S.) 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-28Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Mirza, Chief Executive/Chairman, Shamma Floor Mills (Private)1997 PLD Lahore 447 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ahmad And 13 Others vs Abdul Razaq And 4 Other1997 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Through Sub Divisional1997 MLD 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
• Wasif Zameer Ahmed vs Chairman, Selection Committee (the Principal1997 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Wang Lilly vs Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Through Secretary And 21997 MLD 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Wajid Shamsul Hasan vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux And Others vs Syed Ghulam Akbar Shah And Other1997 MLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• United Business Lines, S.I.E. Gujranwala and anothers vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Lahore and 5 others1997 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21
  goods exit taxzila councildry port transitconstitutional petitionalternate remedystatutory interpretationtax evasioncustoms dry port sambrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of four writ petitions involving a common question of law regarding the levy of Goods Exit Tax by the Zila Council, Sialkot, on imported raw materials in transit from the Dry Port, Sambrial, to the petitioners' factories. The core legal question was when the 24-hour transit period under Rule 5(5) of the Punjab Zila Council (Goods Exit) Rules, 1990, commences for goods cleared from a dry port. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional petitions were maintainable despite alternate statutory remedies, as the case involved resolving a novel question of law requiring statutory interpretation. The Court ruled that the 24-hour permissible transit period commences only when the consignments physically leave the Dry Port premises after delivery by the Port Authorities, and not when duties are deposited or when goods enter the district revenue limits. The key principle laid down is that goods in transit from a dry port are not liable to Goods Exit Tax if they clear the Zila Council limits within 24 hours of leaving the dry port, and that contractors lack the authority to detain goods or use force for tax recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal and revision bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when a difficult question of law requiring statutory interpretation is involved?
  • When does the 24-hour permissible period for goods in transit under Rule 5(5) of the Punjab Zila Council (Goods Exit) Rules, 1990, commence in respect of goods imported through a dry port?
  • Do the lessees, contractors, or their agents have the authority under the Punjab Local Government Act, 1996 and the rules framed thereunder to detain consignments or use force for the recovery of Goods Exit Tax?
  • Are goods imported from abroad and cleared through a Customs Dry Port subject to Goods Exit Tax while in transit across the limits of a Zila Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz vs The State1997 MLD 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Akhtar Bano1997 CLC 864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Umar Asif Janjua vs University of Engineering and Technology1997 PLD Lahore 594 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Um E Kalsoom vs Zahid Bashir And 6 Other1997 CLC 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Tristar Shipping Lines Limited vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,1997 CLC 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-12
  blacklistingnatural justicespeaking orderconstitutional petitionpublic functionariesdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a shipping company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, challenging an order of blacklisting passed against it by the authorities after a dispute arose regarding tenders for the shipment of wheat and the non-submission of a Performance Bond. The core legal question centered on whether a public functionary can blacklist a contractor without observing due process, providing valid reasons, and adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Lahore High Court held that blacklisting entails serious civil and financial consequences and cannot be resorted to arbitrarily or without giving valid reasons in a speaking order, as protected by Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court laid down the principle that public authorities must provide reasons, consider replies and representations made by affected parties, and observe the principles of natural justice before taking adverse action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public functionary pass an order blacklisting a contractor without assigning valid reasons?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice require public authorities to consider written representations before taking adverse action against a citizen?
  • Does an arbitrary blacklisting order violate the guarantees of due process and equal treatment under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Shamasu Lhassan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad1997 PLD Lahore 617 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-30
  Exit Control ListRight to travel abroadFundamental rightsPersonal libertyNatural justiceAudi alteram partemSpeaking orderJudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was instituted before the Lahore High Court challenging an executive order placing the petitioner on the Exit Control List (ECL) and the subsequent rejection of his review representation without assigning any reasons or granting a hearing. The core legal questions involved whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, whether executive authorities exercising statutory discretion under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 are mandated to give reasons and adhere to the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), and whether the mere registration of a criminal FIR justifies restricting a citizen's travel abroad. The High Court allowed the petition, declaring both impugned orders to be arbitrary, mala fide, and without lawful authority. The Court ruled that the right to travel abroad is an integral aspect of personal liberty under Articles 2A, 4, 9, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. Administrative authorities must record reasons via speaking orders and provide an opportunity of hearing, and post-order registration of an FIR or mere criminal allegations cannot serve as valid grounds to deprive a citizen of liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to travel abroad a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the Federal Government place a citizen on the Exit Control List without assigning reasons or issuing a speaking order?
  • Does an administrative authority's failure to provide an opportunity of hearing before or during the review of an exit prohibition violate the principles of natural justice and render the order void?
  • Can the mere registration of a criminal FIR serve as a lawful justification for placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  Read full judgment →
• TM Muhammad and anothers vs The Assistant Commissioner/ Sub-1997 P Cr. L J 874 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shafi M. Sehwani and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22
  Ehtesab Ordinancecorruption and corrupt practicespublic office holderundue pecuniary advantageCDA plot allotmentregularization of illegal constructionmisleading noteloss to State exchequer
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a trial entrusted to the High Court Bench under Section 14 of the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996, in which a former Member Planning/Chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and a private allottee were accused of committing corruption and corrupt practices under Section 3(1)(d), punishable under Section 4 of the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997. The case centered on allegations that the former CDA official recorded misleading notes and illegally recommended the restoration of a cancelled plot and regularization of unauthorized commercial constructions at a nominal rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard instead of the prevalent market rate of Rs. 1,000 per sq. yard, causing a loss of over Rs. 1.87 million to the State exchequer. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused acted in concert through corrupt, dishonest, and illegal means to confer undue pecuniary advantage. The Court convicted both accused under Section 4 of the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000,000 each.

  Questions settled

  • Does obtaining an undue pecuniary benefit by misleading a senior authority constitute an offence of corruption under Section 3(1)(d) of the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997?
  • Is a private citizen who aids or secures an illegal pecuniary advantage from a public office holder equally liable for punishment under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997?
  • Does the repeal and re-enactment of an Ordinance invalidate ongoing criminal proceedings where saved by Section 24 of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • Can a superior officer plead as a defense to a corruption charge that he was merely misled by his subordinate?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hasham Babar1997 PLD Lahore 605 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07
  Ehtesab Ordinancepost-arrest bailcash securitywhite-collar crimeinherent jurisdictionbail conditionsspecial law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous application, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought a variation of bail conditions imposed by the Lahore High Court in references under the Ehtesab Ordinance No. XX of 1997. The applicant challenged the Court's authority to require cash security as a condition for post-arrest bail, arguing that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally mandates bonds with sureties rather than cash deposits. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to impose cash security requirements under the Ehtesab Ordinance. The Court held that it possesses such authority. It reasoned that the Ehtesab Ordinance is a special law designed to eradicate corruption, and the Court is not strictly bound by the procedural limitations of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding security forms. Consequently, the Court affirmed its inherent power to evolve appropriate security procedures, including cash deposits, to ensure the objectives of the accountability legislation are met. The application for variation was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to require cash security as a condition for bail under the Ehtesab Ordinance No. XX of 1997?
  • Are the procedural limitations regarding security forms in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Ehtesab Ordinance No. XX of 1997?
  • Does the Court have inherent power to evolve its own procedures for security when dealing with special legislative measures like the Ehtesab Ordinance No. XX of 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hanif1997 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Abid and 4 others1997 PLD Lahore 144 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Director Accounts, WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others vs Member-I, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 189 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25
  WAPDA employeescivil servant statusNational Industrial Relations CommissionFederal Service Tribunaljurisdiction barterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and its officers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging various final and interim orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and its Member under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. These impugned orders related to the dismissal, removal, suspension, reversion, termination, and emoluments of WAPDA employees. The central legal issue was whether the NIRC possessed jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate grievances relating to the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees, or whether such matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The High Court held that by virtue of Section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. Pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution, Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, and Section 17(1-C) of the Act of 1958, the jurisdiction of all other courts, tribunals, and commissions, including the NIRC, is completely barred in matters concerning the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court accepted the writ petitions and declared all impugned NIRC orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of WAPDA are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain petitions concerning the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of other courts and tribunals where an appeal lies to the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Whether departmental orders regarding removal, dismissal, suspension, reversion, and payment of emoluments of WAPDA employees fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director Accounts, WAPDA, Lahore And 4 Other vs Member-I, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 189 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Tasawwar Ahmad vs Pakistan Television Corporation, Islamabad1997 PLC (C.S.) 556 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed vs Director-General, F.I.A., Islamabad And 3 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 273 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Walayat Shah vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq Altaf vs Government of Punjab And Another1997 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad vs Muhammad Sharif And 2 Other1997 MLD 1913 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Tanveer A. Qureshi vs President of Pakistan, President House, Islamabad and 3 others1997 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-30
  Council for Defence and National Securitycaretaker cabinetexecutive authorityparliamentary form of governmentRules of Businesspowers of the President
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the notification issued by the President of Pakistan on 6 January 1997, which amended the Rules of Business, 1973 to establish the Council for Defence and National Security (CDNS). The core legal questions involved whether the President and the caretaker cabinet possessed the authority to establish the CDNS, whether such an act altered the parliamentary form of government, and whether a caretaker government could take policy decisions of a permanent nature. The Lahore High Court held that while the establishment of the CDNS could not be validly executed merely by amending the Rules of Business under Article 99 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 because it involved a substantive creation rather than mere procedural allocation, the Federal Government was nonetheless fully competent to establish such an advisory body in the exercise of its executive authority under Articles 90 and 97 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that the Pakistan constitutional framework remains parliamentary in character despite the Eighth Amendment, that caretaker cabinets are generally restricted to day-to-day administration and urgent matters but are not strictly barred from handling vital security contingencies, and that an executive advisory body with no binding authority over the cabinet does not infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution or undermine the authority of the elected legislature and upcoming government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the establishment of the Council for Defence and National Security by the President through an amendment in the Rules of Business, 1973 is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the form of government in Pakistan under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as amended by the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1985, remains parliamentary in nature?
  • Can a caretaker cabinet appointed under Article 48(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 validly take major policy decisions or establish advisory councils of national importance?
  • Does the creation of an advisory body like the Council for Defence and National Security violate the basic structure of the Constitution or curtail the powers of the succeeding elected government?
  Read full judgment →
• Talah Safdar And Another vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1997 CLC 601 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Taj Meer vs The Registrar, University of the Punjab, Lahore1997 PLC (C.S.) 799 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Taj Meer vs The Registrar, University of the Punjab, Lahore , .1997 PLC (C.S.) 799 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 929 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-13
  constitutional petitionde novo inquiryauthorised officerinquiry officerefficiency and discipline rulesmaster and servantservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court to challenge the legality of an order passed by an Authorised Officer directing a de novo inquiry against the petitioner, a Data Entry Operator employed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The core legal question was whether an Authorised Officer possesses the legal competence under the applicable rules to order a de novo inquiry upon receiving an exonerating report from an Inquiry Officer. The Court held that the Authorised Officer has no such power under the governing rules, as the authority to order a de novo inquiry is exclusively vested in the Authority. The Court laid down the principle that when the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and accordingly declared the impugned de novo inquiry order to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Authorised Officer is competent to order a de novo inquiry upon receipt of an inquiry report under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Does the power to order a de novo inquiry vest exclusively in the Authority rather than the Authorised Officer?
  • Can an order directing a de novo inquiry be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, J vs The State1997 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Salam Hussain And 2 Others vs Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1997 CLC 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Gilani vs The Pakistan Red Crescent Society And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sultan vs Kabir Ud Din And Other1997 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22
  specific performanceagreement for salehandwriting expertconfrontation of witnessretrospective applicationfabrication of documentsuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected Regular First Appeals arising from a dispute over a shop in Lahore. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, claiming he paid a substantial portion of the consideration and obtained possession. The respondent denied executing the agreement, asserting the appellant was merely a tenant who fabricated the document to avoid eviction. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit, finding the agreement fabricated, and subsequently decreed the respondent's suit for possession. On appeal, the High Court observed that while the trial court erred in applying the attestation requirements of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 retrospectively to a 1983 agreement, its finding of fabrication was fully supported by the evidence. The agreement lacked marginal witnesses despite reciting their presence, and the appellant's witnesses failed to prove execution or payment. Furthermore, the appellant failed to confront the respondent with a disputed writing on the back of the agreement during cross-examination as mandated by Article 140 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Do the attestation requirements of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply retrospectively to agreements executed prior to its enforcement?
  • Can a previous admission or writing of a party be used as legal evidence against them if they were not confronted with it during cross-examination?
  • Is the report of a handwriting expert binding on the court in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Husain Mahmood Shah And Another vs Province of Punjab And 21997 CLC 329 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Abbas Bokhari vs Government of the Punjab And Other1997 CLC 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Hussain Shah vs Syed Riaz Hussain Shah And Another1997 CLC 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Ajmal Hussain Bokhari vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi1997 PLC (C.S.) 754 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-19
  civil servicetransfer and postingright to workjudicial reviewservice tribunalabuse of executive powerOfficer on Special Duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of transfer issued by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, which left the petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, without a posting. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked the authority to transfer him and that the transfer was arbitrary. The respondent argued that the petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that while posting and transfer are generally administrative matters not subject to judicial review under Article 199, the practice of leaving a civil servant without a posting for an extended period constitutes an abuse of executive power and a fraud on the statute. The Court affirmed that a civil servant has a valuable right to be assigned work commensurate with their status and rank. Consequently, the Court directed the Board of Revenue to provide the petitioner with a posting within thirty days, emphasizing that the state must assign duties to public servants rather than keeping them idle at the public expense.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to be assigned a posting commensurate with their rank and status after being transferred?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene in a transfer order that leaves a civil servant without a posting?
  • Can a government department keep a civil servant without a posting for an indefinite period as a form of punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Surkhuroo Khan vs Mst. Mulakh Bano And 6 Other1997 C L C1843 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood, vs Assistant Commissioner, Gujjar Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan/ vs Ghulam Hussain And Another/S1997 MLD 515 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sufi Muhammad Asid vs The State1997 MLD 2613 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sufi Ghulam Mohy Ud Din vs Khushi Muhammad And Other1997 CLC 636 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09
  civil revisionclosing of evidenceadjournmentsburden of proofpleadings as evidenceexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a civil suit by the trial court and the subsequent appellate court, which upheld the trial court's decision to close the plaintiff's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in closing the plaintiff's evidence after granting multiple adjournments and whether the court was obligated to decide the case on merits based solely on documents annexed to the plaint without formal proof. The Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Order XVII, Rule 3, as the plaintiff had been granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence and failed to do so. The Court affirmed that pleadings and annexed documents do not constitute evidence until formally produced and proved in court. The key principle laid down is that a civil suit must be decided on the basis of evidence adduced during trial, and a court cannot rely on documents merely filed with the plaint without them being formally proved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after granting multiple adjournments?
  • Are documents annexed to a plaint considered evidence if they are not formally produced and proved during the trial?
  • Is a court legally permitted to decide a civil suit based on unproved documents attached to the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sufi Faiz Ahmad vs Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore And Other1997 CLC 599 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax ,1997 PTD 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sohail Jute Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Rawalpindi Through Chairman vs Central1997 CLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30
  territorial jurisdictioncause of actioncustoms dutyconstitutional petitionstatutory functionarywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a company based in Rawalpindi, filed a constitutional petition challenging the levy of regulatory duty on imported raw materials, arguing that these imports were covered by an exemption notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.). The petitioner sought a declaration that the levy was unlawful and requested a refund of duties paid. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, noting that the goods were imported, assessed, and cleared at Karachi Port by customs authorities stationed there. The core legal question was whether the High Court at Rawalpindi possessed territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter merely because the C.B.R. is headquartered in Islamabad. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, ruling that the cause of action arose at Karachi, where the statutory functionaries performed the acts of assessment and enforcement. The Court affirmed that the mere location of a superior authority like the C.B.R. within the Court's jurisdiction does not confer authority to issue directions regarding acts performed by subordinate functionaries outside that jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the location of the Central Board of Revenue in Islamabad confer territorial jurisdiction on the Lahore High Court to challenge customs assessments made at Karachi Port?
  • Where does the cause of action arise when a dispute concerns the enforcement or refusal to implement an exemption notification by customs authorities?
  • Can a High Court issue directions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to a statutory functionary performing duties outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan Malik vs Pakistan Banking Council, Karachi And 21997 PLC (C.S.) 112 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Sherman Begum vs State1997 MLD 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs Government of Punjab And Other1997 CLC 718 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad And Another vs Lal Khan1997 MLD 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Rahim And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Saeed Ur Rashid Mehmood Abbasi vs Nawab Salah Ud Din1997 CLC 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
• Shaukat vs The State and another1997 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs Syed Jarar Haider And Another1997 CLC 596 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-05
  writ petitionmatriculation examinationshort attendanceroll number slipeducational institutionmala fideconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a minor student against the headmaster of his school and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur, challenging the action of the headmaster in striking off his name from the roll of candidates for the Matriculation Examination and withholding his roll number slip on the ground of short attendance. The core legal question was whether the headmaster had acted without lawful jurisdiction and mala fide in withholding the roll number slip and failing to follow the prescribed rules regarding the withdrawal of a candidate's admission. The Lahore High Court held that the headmaster's action was without lawful authority and jurisdiction, noting that the admission form was forwarded without noting any provisional status and that the headmaster failed to notify the Controller of Examinations for withdrawal as required by the rules, especially when the student was suffering from a genuine illness. The court laid down the principle that the head of an educational institution is bound to safeguard the students' interests, and where absence is due to genuine illness without deliberate negligence, arbitrary actions and withholding of roll number slips amounting to mala fide will be interfered with in writ jurisdiction to ensure equity and social justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the head of an educational institution can strike off a candidate's name for short attendance without following the prescribed procedure for withdrawing candidature?
  • Does the withholding of a roll number slip by a headmaster based on alleged short attendance constitute an action without lawful authority and jurisdiction?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the arbitrary action of a school headmaster regarding a student's examination admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And Another1997 PLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Province of Punjab And 6 Other1997 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13
  arrears of land revenuecontractual liabilitylocal governmentrecovery of duesstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the recovery of unpaid employee salaries by a Zila Council from a contractor as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question is whether contractual arrears, specifically unpaid salaries of council employees owed by a contractor under a lease agreement, fall within the scope of 'other moneys payable' under Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby permitting recovery through the summary machinery of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Court held that the amount in question, arising purely from a contractual obligation under a lease agreement, does not constitute 'taxes', 'rents', or 'other moneys payable' under the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the statutory recovery mechanism is limited to dues arising under the Ordinance itself and cannot be extended to private contractual debts. Consequently, the Court declared the recovery proceedings initiated by the District Collector to be without lawful authority, while clarifying that the Zila Council remains free to pursue recovery through ordinary civil legal channels.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual arrears owed to a Zila Council be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the expression 'other moneys payable' in Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, encompass private contractual debts?
  • Is a claim for unpaid salaries of council employees, owed by a contractor under a lease agreement, recoverable through the summary machinery of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Bibi vs S.S.P., Gujranwala And 7 Other1997 MLD 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Alias Shamu vs The State1997 MLD 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shamshad alias Shada vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Shamas Ejaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shakir Aziz vs D.I.G., Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad And Other1997 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →