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.

• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Bibi vs The State1997 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nasim and 2 others vs Syeda Imtiaz Khatoon1997 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28
  regular second appealsale-deed cancellationpassing of titlenon-payment of considerationmisreading of evidenceexecuted contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a property dispute over a residential bungalow in Lahore, originally owned by the plaintiff and sold to the appellants through a registered sale-deed. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale-deed and a declaration that the sale was void ab initio, alleging it was without consideration because the purchase cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. The lower courts decreed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the sale was without consideration and ownership had not passed. The Lahore High Court examined the core legal question of whether non-payment of the purchase price renders a sale-deed void and prevents the passing of title. The High Court held that the title to immovable property passes upon the execution and registration of a sale-deed, irrespective of whether the purchase price has been paid or possession delivered, unless the parties intended payment to be a condition precedent. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts misread and ignored material documentary evidence establishing that the cheque had indeed been encashed. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-payment of the purchase price render a registered sale-deed void and prevent the passing of title from the seller to the purchaser?
  • Whether the passing of title in an immovable property sale is dependent on the intention of the parties regarding the payment of the purchase price as a condition precedent?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in a regular second appeal on the ground of non-reading or misreading of material evidence?
  • Is a suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed maintainable solely on the ground that the purchase money was allegedly not paid, where the contract is fully executed?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hamid And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Khan vs Province of Punjab Through Collector, Okara And 61997 MLD 173 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-07Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Alias Rasoola vs The State1997 MLD 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Fazil vs Sh. Abdul Qadir And 7 Other1997 CLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-05
  offer of oathresile from oathcounsel authorityVakalatnamaarbitration awardpartnership dissolutionconsolidated hearingrevocation of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of four first appeals arising from an order of the Civil Judge, Sialkot, which dismissed applications by the appellants seeking to resile from an offer of oath and disposed of a partnership dissolution suit along with arbitration petitions based on a statement on oath made by a respondent. The core legal questions involved whether parties can resile from an offer of oath under changed circumstances, whether a counsel has the implied authority to bind clients to an oath without express provision in the Vakalatnama, and whether a pending arbitration proceeding can be bypassed by an oath agreement without revoking the arbitrators' authority. The Lahore High Court held that a counsel cannot bind clients to an oath without specific authority in the Vakalatnama, that intervening hostilities and loss of confidence justify permitting parties to resile from an offer of oath, and that arbitration proceedings cannot be superseded unilaterally. The court set aside the trial court's order, permitted the parties to resile from the offer of oath, and remanded the matters for decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to resile from an offer of oath when subsequent events and worsening relations show a loss of confidence in the offeree?
  • Does a general power to plead and act in a Vakalatnama empower a counsel to bind a client to a decision based on the oath of the opposite party?
  • Whether arbitration proceedings and a filed award can be superseded by an agreement to refer the dispute to an oath without formally revoking the authority of the arbitrators under the law?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against an order recording a compromise or adjustment without appending a certified copy of the decree-sheet?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad And Others vs Collector Lahore And Other1997 MLD 466 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Seva And 3 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Senator Lt.Gen. (Rtd.) Saeed Qadir vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sarnawaz and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sargodha Textile Mills vs Punjab Employees1997 PLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sargodha Textile Mills vs Punjab Employees , .1997 PLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 2 others vs Mian Sikandar Hayat, Judge Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Jamal Khan Leghari vs Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan Khosa1997 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26
  election nominationloan write-offcandidate disqualificationconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 225Representation of the People ActAmeen and righteous
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the acceptance of respondent No. 3’s nomination papers for the Punjab Provincial Assembly, alleging disqualification due to the writing off of loans obtained by a company where the respondent was a director. The core legal questions were whether the respondent was disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 despite the bar in Article 225. The Court held that the respondent was disqualified, as the company’s loan remission constituted a "write off," and the respondent's false declaration regarding this rendered him ineligible. The Court ruled that the High Court may interfere in election matters when orders are patently illegal or without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the general bar under Article 225. The judgment established that "writing off" encompasses any liquidation of liability without full payment, and that disqualification provisions regarding loan repayment are valid constitutional requirements for candidates, ensuring that candidates remain sagacious, righteous, and honest.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge an election nomination despite the bar in Article 225 of the Constitution?
  • Does the remission of a loan liability constitute a 'write off' for the purpose of candidate disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Are the disqualification provisions concerning the non-repayment of loans in the Representation of the People Act, 1976, violative of Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the failure to disclose a written-off loan in a nomination paper disqualify a candidate on the grounds of not being 'Ameen' or 'righteous'?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan And Another vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1997 MLD 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Saqib Najeeb Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner1997 MLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sanober Khan vs Muhammad Younis And Another1997 CLC 1658 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saleem & Co. and others vs Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PTD 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
• Siraj DIN/Defendant vs Mst. Jamilan and another1997 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-19
  preferential giftburden of proofregistered instrumentexecution of documentdelivery of possessiongift under Muslim lawregular first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning agricultural land allegedly donated via a registered gift-deed by the deceased father of the litigating parties to the appellant son. The respondents, daughters of the deceased, challenged the gift as a spurious document executed while the donor suffered from serious physical illness. The trial court dismissed the suit, prompting the appeal. The Lahore High Court examined whether a registered instrument creates a conclusive presumption of execution and truth of its contents, the scope of proof of thumb-impressions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the validity of a preferential gift under Muslim law. The Court held that a certificate of registration only proves that registration proceedings were regularly carried out and does not establish that the document was genuinely executed by the named person or that its contents are true. Furthermore, proof of a signature or thumb-impression under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order proves authorship but is not synonymous with proving the contents of the document, which must be independently established by the beneficiary. While a preferential gift to one heir to the exclusion of others is not void under Islamic law, it requires strict proof of its essential ingredients: offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The appellant failed to prove execution and delivery of possession by cogent evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a certificate of registration create a legal presumption that a document was genuinely executed by the named executant and that its contents are true?
  • Is the proof of a signature or thumb-impression under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order sufficient to prove the truth of the contents of a disputed document?
  • What are the essential constituents of a valid gift under Muslim jurisprudence?
  • Is a preferential gift made by a Muslim owner in favour of one legal heir to the exclusion of others void under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1997 MLD 2122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State1997 MLD 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
• Saif Ul Haq Ziay, Advocate vs Justice Mehboob Ahmad, the Honourable CH18F1997 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Safdar and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Shah vs The State1997 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi And 8 Other1997 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Interprizes vs Islamic Republic No. 61997 P.C.T.L.R. 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sacred Heart High School vs Director, Social Security And Others1997 PLC 729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-08
  social security contributioneducational institutionsestablishmentwagesbeneficial legislationconstitutional petitionWest Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a batch of constitutional petitions filed by several educational institutions challenging a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and subsequent notices demanding social security contributions for their teaching and non-teaching staff. The core legal questions relate to whether educational institutions and their staff fall within the definitions of 'establishment' and 'employees' under the Ordinance, and whether salaries paid to staff qualify as 'wages'. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that beneficial legislation such as the Ordinance of 1965 must be interpreted liberally to advance its remedial objectives and social justice under Article 2A of the Constitution. The Court ruled that educational institutions qualify as establishments, their staff are covered as employees, and salaries constitute wages. The key principle laid down is that statutes in pari-materia should apply consistent definitions, and welfare legislation must receive a wide construction to fulfill legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether educational institutions fall within the definition of an establishment under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Do the salaries paid to teaching and non-teaching staff of educational institutions qualify as wages under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • How should beneficial or remedial legislation such as the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, be construed by the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs Muhammad Shafique Butt And 2 Other1997 MLD 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali And Another vs The Administrator, Zila Council, Sialkot1997 CLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rupali Polyester Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others1997 PTD 54 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Rubina Ali vs Rafaqat Ali And Other1997 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Riffat Askari vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 285 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17
  section 265-k cr.p.c.ehtesab ordinanceretrospective legislationarticle 12 constitution of pakistanprocedural lawforum of trialpublic servant corruptionbail provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the accused, who was charged while serving as Chairman of O.G.D.C. under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and subsequently subjected to trial under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996. The core legal questions involved whether the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 violated Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by operating retrospectively, whether changes in forum, procedure, and bail provisions were ultra vires, and whether the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner's reference procedure was legally flawed. The Lahore High Court held that the Ehtesab Ordinance created no new offences and prescribed no greater or different penalties, thus not offending Article 12, and that procedural changes such as forum transfer do not violate fundamental rights. The court established that an accused has no vested right to a particular forum or procedure, that procedural statutes operate retrospectively, and that reasonable classification of public servants for anti-corruption measures is valid. Consequently, the application was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 violate Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by applying to acts committed prior to its promulgation?
  • Does an accused person have a vested right to be tried in a specific forum or under a particular procedure existing at the time of the offence?
  • Whether the transfer of trial proceedings and alteration of bail provisions under anti-corruption laws constitute a change of procedure rather than a substantive change in punishment?
  • Is the classification of senior civil servants under special accountability legislation a reasonable classification that does not violate the principle of equal protection of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Bashir, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Budiana,1997 MLD 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Kasur And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 115 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Nazir Hussain1997 MLD 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-22
  judicial remanddischarge of accusedmagisterial jurisdictioncriminal investigationocular evidencepolice diarieswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a Magistrate's order discharging an accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, when considering an application for judicial remand, acts within jurisdiction by discharging an accused based on defense affidavits while ignoring incriminating ocular evidence and FIR statements. The High Court held that the Magistrate’s order was patently illegal and arbitrary. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to apply his mind to the police diaries and ocular evidence, improperly assuming the role of determining guilt or innocence at the remand stage, particularly in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The judgment establishes that while a Magistrate has the authority to grant or refuse remand, they must critically examine the material collected by the police under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. A Magistrate cannot prematurely determine innocence or guilt based on defense affidavits during the remand stage, nor should they ignore substantive evidence like FIRs and witness statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate determine the guilt or innocence of an accused while deciding an application for judicial remand?
  • Is a Magistrate required to consider ocular evidence and FIR statements when deciding whether to discharge an accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to discharge an accused in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session based solely on defense affidavits?
  • What is the scope of a Magistrate's duty to examine police diaries under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when considering a remand application?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Flour Mills vs WAPDA1997 CLC 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum And 9 Others vs Chiragh Din And 2 Other1997 CLC 757 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mahmood vs Administrator, District Council and others1997 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04
  public auctionhighest biddernatural justicetransparency in administrationwrit jurisdictionlocal council leasediscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a second auction for lease rights held by the Zila Council, arguing it was conducted surreptitiously after his bid in the first auction was the highest. The core legal question was whether the second auction, held shortly after the first without proper notice or formal rejection of the first bid, was legally valid, and whether the court should intervene despite the contract being substantially executed. The Court held that while the second auction violated Rule 4 of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, regarding the mandatory fifteen-day interval between auction attempts, it declined to set aside the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract had been operational for several months, and intervention would disrupt public interest and cause administrative complications. The key principles laid down are that while a highest bidder possesses no vested right to have their bid accepted, authorities must act with transparency and propriety. Specifically, authorities are obligated to formally inform the highest bidder of the non-acceptance of their bid and provide reasons, as absolute, opaque discretion breeds arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the highest bidder in a public auction acquire a vested right to have their bid accepted by the authority?
  • Is a local council required to provide a formal, reasoned decision when rejecting the highest bid in an auction?
  • Does the inclusion of multiple auction dates in a single proclamation violate the statutory requirement for a fifteen-day interval between auction attempts under the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990?
  • Can a court decline to exercise constitutional writ jurisdiction even if an administrative action is found to be procedurally irregular?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab1997 PLD Lahore 531 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar And Other1997 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 CLC 578 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31
  rejection of plaintevacuee propertyenemy propertylocus standicause of actioncivil revisiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three civil revision petitions challenging concurrent decisions of the lower courts to reject the plaints of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners occupied portions of a property in Lahore originally owned by the Punjab National Bank Ltd., which was purchased by the National Bank of Pakistan in 1963. The core legal questions involved whether the property was evacuee or enemy property, whether it vested in the Custodian, and whether the plaints disclosed a cause of action for a declaratory suit and permanent injunction. The Lahore High Court held that the property never formed part of the evacuee pool or enemy property, the statutory authorities had long recognized the National Bank of Pakistan's ownership, and the petitioners lacked locus standi and a cause of action. The court ruled that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are not exhaustive and allow the court to examine authentic documents to terminate still-born suits at their inception. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court look into authentic documents alongside the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether property belonging to a joint stock company with its head office in India was excluded from the definition of evacuee property under Ordinance XV of 1949?
  • Do occupants of a property lacking any prospective legal right or ownership have the locus standi to challenge a registered sale deed executed in favour of a banking company?
  • Whether the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are exhaustive for the termination of meritless litigation at its inception?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Khokhar And 2 Others vs Sana Ullah And Another1997 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03
  specific performancerejection of plaintagreement to sellprivity of contractcivil revisionlegal estatevoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an order dismissing an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought the rejection of a plaint for specific performance. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell confers upon the vendee a right to further alienate the property, and whether such a sub-agreement creates privity of contract between the original owner and a subsequent purchaser. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in the property, as the legal estate passes only upon the completion of the sale. Consequently, a vendee cannot legally delegate the power to sell property they do not own. The Court ruled that any contractual clause purporting to authorize such further sale is void ab initio and against the law. As no privity of contract exists between the original owner and a second vendee, the suit for specific performance by the latter is not maintainable. The Court set aside the trial court's order and rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell create any right, title, or interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agreement?
  • Can a vendee under an agreement to sell further sell or agree to sell the property to a third party?
  • Does a clause in an agreement to sell authorizing a vendee to further sell the property create privity of contract between the original owner and a subsequent purchaser?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable by a second vendee against the original owner where no privity of contract exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary Education, Lahore And 2 Other1997 CLC 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-21
  constitutional petitiongrace marksLL.B. examinationbeneficial constructiondiscriminatory provisionuniversity regulationsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by a petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-University to award him four grace marks in Paper VI of the LL.B. Examination, which would enable him to pass. The core legal question involved the validity of the third proviso to amended Regulation No. 4 of the University Calendar, which denied the benefit of grace marks to candidates who appeared in the examination in parts. The court held that the third proviso, to the extent that it denies the benefit of five grace marks to candidates appearing in parts, is discriminatory, in direct conflict with the first proviso, and invalid. The court laid down that beneficial construction and equitable considerations must be applied in interpreting statutory regulations, ensuring that beneficial provisions are construed to avoid harsh and discriminatory results against candidates who have otherwise secured high marks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the third proviso to amended Regulation No. 4 of the University Calendar denying grace marks to candidates appearing in parts is discriminatory and invalid?
  • Can a university lawfully refuse the benefit of grace marks to candidates who have appeared in an examination in parts?
  • How should a proviso to a regulation be interpreted under the principles of beneficial construction and statutory interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Rehmatullah vs S.H.O.1997 MLD 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Rana Iftikhar Ahmad vs Munir Khan And Another1997 MLD 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Welfare Trust vs WAPDA1997 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-19
  constitutional petitionkite flyingBasantload sheddingtrichotomy of powersfundamental rightsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought directions to the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to enforce overnight electricity load shedding across the province during the 'Basant' festival, along with an oral prayer to ban kite flying. The petitioner asserted that kite flying during Basant caused public nuisance, electrical breakdowns, injuries, and fatalities. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could ban kite flying or compel WAPDA to enforce load shedding to prevent citizens from engaging in an activity not prohibited by statute. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that its jurisdiction under Article 199 is restricted to compelling performance of statutory duties or restraining unlawful actions. In the absence of a prohibitory law, preventing people from flying kites would violate Article 4 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that under the constitutional trichotomy of powers and Article 175, judicial law-making or directions based purely on moral grounds are impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution issue directions to ban an activity that is not prohibited by any law?
  • Does ordering power load shedding to prevent citizens from flying kites violate Article 4 of the Constitution?
  • Can the High Court perform legislative functions or issue prohibitory directions purely on moral or social grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Siddique vs Abdur Rahman1997 CLC 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02
  pre-emptiontalb-i-muwathibatexchange of landrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a land transaction executed through exchange. The core legal questions involve whether the transaction constituted a sale subject to pre-emption or a legitimate exchange, and whether the petitioner fulfilled the mandatory statutory and Islamic requirements of making proper demands (talbs). The Lahore High Court held that the transaction was a genuine exchange rather than a sale disguised to defeat pre-emption, and that the petitioner failed to prove the essential particulars and proper procedure of Talb-i-Muwathibat as required by law. The court affirmed that defeating a right of pre-emption through a legitimate exchange is lawful, and no material irregularity or misreading of evidence warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that failure to state precise particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat is fatal to a pre-emption suit, and parties may lawfully employ devices such as exchange of property to defeat pre-emption claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction executed through the exchange of land can be treated as a sale subject to pre-emption?
  • Is the failure to mention specific particulars and the exact time or place of Talb-i-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a right of pre-emption be lawfully defeated through a legitimate device or transaction of exchange?
  • When can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding talbs in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf vs Excise and Taxation Officer and others1997 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
• Rai Arif Hussain vs Returning Officer and others1997 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-04Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausemurdercommon intentioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving murder charges under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of holding the deceased while co-accused committed the murder, argued that his case warranted bail on the grounds of further inquiry, citing the lack of direct injury attribution and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail. The Court examined whether the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that bail under the 'further inquiry' provision is only applicable when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence. Finding that the prosecution had sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime—specifically noting the motive involving the petitioner's wife—the Court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner committed the offence. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, affirming that 'further inquiry' cannot be invoked merely on hypothetical possibilities without a nexus to the accused's potential innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted under the 'further inquiry' provision if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Is the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when the prosecution has established a prima facie case connecting the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh And Another vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore And 10 Other1997 MLD 2607 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Rafique alias Rafiqa vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue1997 MLD 2571 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bibi vs Muhammad Malik And 3 Other1997 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Qutab Din vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Qazi Fazal Ahmad Through Legal Heirs vs Riaz Ur Rahim And Other1997 CLC 322 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Qaumi Foundation vs Asad Anees Ansari1997 CLC 33 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-28
  personal needejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementresidential premisesconversion of useparental maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the appellants (a foundation) from a residential property on the ground of the landlord's personal need. The core legal questions were whether a landlord gainfully employed abroad can seek eviction for personal use, whether the need of a landlord's parent qualifies as the landlord's own need, and whether a residential property let for non-residential purposes can be recovered for residential use. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a landlord's foreign employment does not negate the bona fide nature of a requirement to return and reside in their own property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the term 'for his own occupation' includes the need to accommodate and maintain one's parents, consistent with Islamic injunctions. The Court also ruled that a tenant cannot unilaterally change the character of a building to defeat a landlord's right to recover possession for residential purposes. The principle established is that the landlord's bona fide personal need, including the support of parents, constitutes a valid ground for eviction, regardless of the tenant's unauthorized conversion of the premises' use.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord who is gainfully employed in a foreign country maintain an ejectment application on the ground of personal need?
  • Does the phrase 'for his own occupation' in rent law include the need to accommodate and maintain the landlord's parents?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for residential purposes if the tenant has converted a residential building to non-residential use without permission?
  • Is an ejectment application maintainable against a foundation without joining all legal heirs of the original individual tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman And Others vs Ejazi Begum And Other1997 MLD 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07
  constitutional petitioncivil revisionlachesjurisdiction of civil courtevacuee propertyrejection of plaintland settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a civil revision and two constitutional petitions arising from a dispute over land forming part of Khasra numbers 220 and 224 in Rawalpindi, which the petitioners claimed was part of an industrial brick kiln allotted to their predecessor, while respondents claimed it was agricultural land transferred under evacuee laws and later purchased by them. The core legal questions involved whether constitutional petitions challenging decades-old settlement transfers were barred by laches, whether a civil suit regarding such property transfers was barred under specific statutory provisions, and whether the rejection of the plaint was justified. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional petitions suffered from gross laches, delay, and acquiescence since the respondents had purchased the land for valuable consideration and constructed houses over it many years prior. Furthermore, the Court held that the civil suit was barred by the ouster of jurisdiction under the relevant land settlement legislation. Consequently, all matters were dismissed, affirming that civil courts lack jurisdiction to question property transfers made under the evacuee settlement laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions challenging property transfers made by settlement authorities are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of gross laches and delay?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the civil court stand ousted to examine questions regarding the proper transfer of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Can a civil suit be maintained when the plaintiff has made prior admissions in litigation stating the disputed property does not belong to them?
  • Whether the rejection of a plaint is justified when the suit is barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Din vs Capt. Shafique Ahmad Khan And 3 Other1997 CLC 774 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security vs Khadim Hussain1997 PLC (C.S.) 290 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Punjab Agriculture (Bagh-E-Jinnah) vs The Registrar, Trade Union1997 PLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21
  constitutional petitiontrade union registrationlachesmala fideRules of Businessprivate counsel engagementcivil servantsworkmenindustry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the Superintendent of Bagh-e-Jinnah against orders registering respondents as trade unions and refusing to deregister them under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioner contended that Bagh-e-Jinnah was not an industry and that its employees were civil servants rather than workers. The High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary grounds and merits. Preliminarily, the court held that the petition suffered from an unexplained delay of over two years (laches), lacked bona fides due to personal animus, and was incompetent because the Superintendent engaged private counsel without the mandatory permission of the Law Department under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 1974. On the merits, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that low-paid employees performing manual, mechanical, or operational duties—such as drivers, electricians, fitters, malis, and tubewell operators—are workers/workmen under the Factories Act 1934 and Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, and are thus entitled to form trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public officer or government department engage a private counsel to conduct litigation without obtaining permission from the Law Department?
  • Whether government employees performing manual and operational functions are civil servants barred from forming trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does an unexplained delay of over two years in challenging an administrative order regarding trade union registration render a constitutional petition liable to dismissal for laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through The Collector, Multan District, Multan And Another vs Mst. Khursheed Fatima And 5 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 694 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab_Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vs Mst. Hajira Begum and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Director Housing and Physical Planning1997 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, District Gujrat And 2 Others vs Muhammad Bashir And Another1997 MLD 806 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10
  revision petitioncondonation of delaysufficient causeadmissibility of evidenceremandconcurrent findingsmiscarriage of justicelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding land ownership and possession. A preliminary issue arose concerning the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the government department demonstrated "sufficient cause" for the delay, as the time was consumed by internal departmental deliberations and seeking legal advice, which constituted a bona fide effort. On the merits, the Court found that the trial court committed a material irregularity by admitting several documents into evidence "under objection" without ever determining the validity of those objections. This failure prevented the parties from knowing whether further evidence was required to prove the documents, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The key principle established is that trial courts must adjudicate objections to the admissibility of evidence at the time they are raised to ensure parties have the opportunity to properly prove their case, failing which a retrial may be necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the internal processing of legal advice by a government department constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a trial court required to decide on objections to the admissibility of documents at the time they are raised?
  • Can a revision petition be remanded for a fresh trial if the lower court failed to adjudicate on objections regarding the admissibility of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, Bahawalpur And Another vs Babu1997 MLD 2577 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Others vs Muhammad Rashid And Other1997 MLD 2568 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and another vs Sheikh Abdul Ghafoor & Co.1997 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shahid Hussain vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department, LahoreAnd 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 308 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shahid Hussain vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and 3 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 308 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Khan vs Vice Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur And 4 Other1997 CLC 591 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-02Read full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank Limited, Aiwan-E-Iqbaltax, Complex, Egerton1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank And Other vs Assistant Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1997 CL. 29 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Rafi1997 CLC 861 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Trade Union and others vs N.I.R.C.1997 PLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Trade Union And Other vs N. I. R. C.1997 PLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Oil Fields Khaur, District Attock vs Muhammad Aslam And Other1997 MLD 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd vs M/s. Terni, S.P.A. Itally Through1997 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Chest Foundation And Others vs Government of Pakistan1997 CLC 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04
  public interest litigationright to lifeconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictioncigarette advertisingpublic healthelectronic media
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by health organizations seeking to ban cigarette advertisements on Pakistan Television (PTV) and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC). The core legal questions concerned whether such advertisements violate constitutional protections regarding life and health, whether PTV and PBC are amenable to writ jurisdiction, and whether the court could issue a ban in the absence of specific legislation. The Court held that cigarette advertisements on electronic media promote smoking, which is scientifically proven to be hazardous to health, thereby violating Article 4(2)(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits actions detrimental to life or body without legal authority. The Court directed PTV and PBC to cease such advertisements, allowing a limited exception for sponsored sports events. The key principles laid down include that the right to life under Article 9 and the protection of law under Article 4 encompass the right to a healthy environment free from avoidable health hazards. Furthermore, public interest litigation permits a liberal interpretation of 'aggrieved person' to protect public health, and constitutional provisions are self-executing, empowering courts to issue directions to prevent threats to fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cigarette advertisements on electronic media violate the constitutional right to life and protection of law?
  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation 'persons' amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a High Court issue directions to ban cigarette advertisements in the absence of specific statutory prohibition based on constitutional provisions?
  • Does public interest litigation allow organizations to maintain a constitutional petition for the protection of public health?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Tariq Brother1997 CLC 761 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29
  closure of evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3adjournmentremand of suitrefund of court feedecision on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's suit for recovery by the trial court. The trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence and dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a date following an adjournment caused by the Presiding Officer's absence on leave. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the penal provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could be lawfully invoked to close evidence when the preceding adjournment was not made at the instance or request of the defaulting party. The Lahore High Court held that Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked unless time was granted specifically at the request of the defaulting party. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remanded the suit for decision on merits, and issued a court-fee refund certificate pursuant to Section 13 of the Court Fees Act 1870.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked against a party when the previous adjournment was not granted at its specific request?
  • Does the closure of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a case is adjourned due to the Presiding Officer being on leave?
  • Is an appellant entitled to a refund certificate for court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act 1870 when a suit is remanded without a final determination of the parties' rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Through Secretary, Islamabad1997 CLC 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd. vs Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd.1997 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22
  winding uparbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingscompanies ordinanceexclusive jurisdictioninability to pay debts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous matter before the Lahore High Court addressed whether an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be moved to stay winding-up proceedings initiated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The respondents sought to stay the compulsory winding-up petitions by invoking arbitration agreements. The core legal question was whether winding-up proceedings constitute a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration and whether such proceedings can be stayed under section 34. The Court held that winding-up proceedings cannot be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, because winding-up falls under the special statutory jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be adjudicated by an arbitrator, and does not constitute a proceeding to enforce a claim arising under an agreement or a suit for recovery. The key principle laid down is that the exclusive statutory jurisdiction to wind up a company vests solely in the Court and cannot be subjected to arbitration or stayed under the Arbitration Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be used to stay winding-up proceedings under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether winding-up proceedings amount to a matter that can be referred to arbitration?
  • Does an arbitrator have the power to order the winding up of a company?
  • Are winding-up petitions considered proceedings to enforce a claim arising under an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• O.S. Molasses Corporation through Riaz Ahmad Lali, Resident Director, Lahore vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1997 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Noorul Hassan vs Abdul Hameed And Other1997 MLD 432 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18
  civil revisionrejection of plaintfraud and collusionframing of issueschallenge to decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the order of the Civil Judge Ist Class, Lodhran, dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of a plaint. The underlying suit sought to challenge a previous decree on the grounds of fraud, forgery, and collusion, which the petitioner argued was barred except through proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that where mixed questions of law and fact regarding fraud, misrepresentation, and forgery are raised and have already been framed into specific issues during a fully contested trial nearing its conclusion, the plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII, Rule 11. The Court affirmed that such matters must be adjudicated upon the appraisal of evidence already brought on record rather than non-suiting the plaintiff on technical grounds. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed with a direction for the expeditious disposal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the grounds raised are already covered by issues framed in a trial nearing its conclusion?
  • Can a suit challenging a decree on the basis of fraud and collusion be dismissed summarily without examining evidence brought on record?
  • Whether High Court will interfere in revisional jurisdiction against an interlocutory order where no failure of justice or patent defect is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Gulzar And Other1997 CLC 723 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1997 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →