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.

• Muhammad Nawaz Arid Others vs Rahim Bux1997 CLC 2034 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs S.H.O. Police Station Thikriwala, District1997 MLD 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naazar Khan vs Express Commercial Finance Company1997 CLC 852 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs District Magistrate, Sheikhupura And Another1997 MLD 1658 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09
  preventive detentionpublic orderwrit jurisdictiondouble jeopardydetention orderacquittaljudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura, under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against the petitioner's brother. The core legal question was whether past criminal cases, in which the detenu had been acquitted, could serve as valid grounds for preventive detention. The Court held that the detention order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio established that the mere involvement in past criminal cases, particularly where the accused has been acquitted, does not constitute a valid basis for preventive detention. The Court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as a punitive measure for conduct already adjudicated by a court of law. Furthermore, the judgment affirmed that a District Magistrate cannot mechanically accept police reports without applying an independent mind to the material. The principle laid down is that past criminal charges, especially those resulting in acquittal, cannot be recycled to justify preventive detention, as this would violate the protection against double jeopardy and the fundamental right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can past criminal cases resulting in acquittal form a valid basis for an order of preventive detention?
  • Is a detention order based solely on police reports without independent application of mind by the District Magistrate legally sustainable?
  • Does the release of a detenu render a constitutional petition challenging the detention order infructuous?
  • Can preventive detention be utilized as a punitive measure for criminal conduct already adjudicated by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murtaza And Another vs The Deputy Commissioner/Deputy1997 PLC (C. S.) 214 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Ahmad vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan Through The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muneer Alias Munira vs The State1997 MLD 1428 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Qureshi vs Government of the Punjab Through The Chief Secretary, Lahore And 5 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor vs S.H.O., Police Station Layya, District Multan1997 MLD 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice highhandednessrecovery of detenuconstitutional guaranteeSection 491 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of the petitioner's son, Muhammad Ashiq, who was allegedly held in illegal and improper custody by a police officer, Mahr Muhammad Riaz, A.S.I., without any registered case or legal justification. The core legal question was whether the detention of the alleged detenu by the police officer was lawful and whether the court could intervene to restore his liberty. Upon investigation by a court-appointed Bailiff, it was confirmed that no case was registered against the detenu, and the police officer's explanations were contradictory and inconsistent. The Court held that the detention was illegal and improper, violating the constitutional guarantees of the citizen. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu and imposed costs of Rs. 2,500 upon the responsible police officer to be paid to the victim, emphasizing that the illegal deprivation of a citizen's liberty by law enforcement is a serious matter that warrants penalization and cannot be ignored by the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the recovery of a person detained by police without a registered case under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the illegal detention of a citizen by a police officer justify the imposition of costs against the officer?
  • Is a police officer's contradictory explanation regarding the detention of a citizen sufficient to establish illegal custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman Ahmad vs Munir Ahmad And Another1997 CLC 651 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-20
  constitutional petitionejectmentdefault in payment of rentburden of proofappellate court powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges the appellate order of the Additional District Judge whereby an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 for default in rent was dismissed. The core legal questions involved the shifting of onus of proof regarding the payment of rent and the proper discharge of appellate duties in reversing a Rent Controller's findings. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court's judgment was without lawful authority because it misapplied the rules governing the burden of proof for a negative fact and failed to properly appraise the evidence on record or address the Rent Controller's reasoning. The court laid down the principle that once a landlord makes a statement on oath denying the receipt of rent, the onus shifts to the tenant to affirmatively establish payment, and an appellate court reversing a finding of fact must thoroughly appraise the entire evidence and examine the reasoning of the court of first instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the onus of proving default in rent shift to the tenant once the landlord makes a statement on oath denying receipt of rent?
  • Is it necessary for a landlord to specifically plead in an ejectment application that rent was received by his father during the landlord's minority when both parties have led evidence on the issue?
  • Whether an appellate court reversing the findings of a Rent Controller is required to appraise the entire evidence on record and address the reasoning of the lower forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif alias Pappu and another vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Shahid vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity WAPDA, Muridke and others1997 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Akbar Bhatti and 5 others1997 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13
  specific performancepreliminary decreefinal decreeextension of timefunctus officioagreement to sellcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 raised questions regarding whether a court passes a preliminary or final decree in an action for specific performance, whether it retains control over the lis to enlarge the time fixed for depositing the purchase price under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the petitioner made out a case for extension of time. The Lahore High Court held that a decree in a specific performance suit is generally preliminary in nature, and the court retains seisin over the lis with power to extend the time for payment. However, where a conditional decree explicitly states that the suit shall stand dismissed upon default of payment within the specified time, the decree becomes self-operative and final, rendering the court functus officio and barring any extension under Sections 148 or 151. Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause or readiness to perform his part of the contract, and given the passage of time and rising property prices, no case for discretionary relief was made out. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree passed in an action for specific performance of an agreement of sale is preliminary or final in nature?
  • Does a court retain power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enlarge the time fixed for depositing the purchase price in a specific performance decree?
  • Can a court extend the time for payment of the purchase price under a conditional decree that provides for the automatic dismissal of the suit upon default?
  • Whether revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised in favor of a party whose conduct is indolent or causes injury to the opposite party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Another vs Additional District Judge, Rahimyar1997 MLD 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad Siddiqui vs University of the Punjab, Through V.C.1997 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The Full Bench of N.I.R.C. of Pakistan, Lahore and another1997 PLC 206 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The Full Bench of N.I.R.C. of Pakistan Lahore And Another1997 PLC 206 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary, Local Government of Punjab, Lahore1997 PLD Lahore 477 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Noor Muhammad1997 MLD 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Intizar-Ul-Hassan vs University of Agriculture, Faisalabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 855 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1997 MLD 790 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs S.H.O., P.S. Baddomalhi, District Narowal And 31997 MLD 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-04
  second FIRcounter-versionregistration of FIRcognizable offenceSection 154 CrPCwrit petitionpolice duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition was filed seeking directions for the registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) containing a counter-version of a fatal incident. The police had registered FIR No. 109/1996 under Sections 302/324/353/148/149 PPC, alleging that a police party was attacked while responding to a land dispute. Conversely, the petitioner alleged that the police party, aiding the adverse party to dispossess the petitioner's family, committed indiscriminate firing, resulting in one death and injuries. The Station House Officer (SHO) refused to record the petitioner's version separately, contending that only one FIR could be registered per occurrence and counter-versions could be analyzed during investigation.

  The High Court held that where a counter-version discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obligates the police to register a separate case. Registration cannot be denied merely because an earlier FIR exists or police personnel are implicated. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the SHO to register an FIR based on the petitioner's written complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR containing a counter-version of the same occurrence be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the police obligated to register an FIR on a counter-version if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can the registration of a counter-version FIR be refused on the ground that an FIR regarding the occurrence is already being investigated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20
  rent restrictioneviction petitioninterim orderrent depositframing of issuesconstitutional petitionstatutory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an interim order passed by the Rent Controller in an eviction proceeding. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller can simultaneously pass an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and frame issues in the same order. The petitioner, a tenant, contended that the Rent Controller acted without lawful authority by combining these procedural steps. The High Court held that the order was illegal and violative of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 13(6). The Court reasoned that the Rent Controller must first determine the amount of rent due and direct its deposit before proceeding to frame issues. By conflating these stages, the Rent Controller bypassed the mandatory sequence required by the Ordinance. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Rent Controller to conduct a proper inquiry into the rent arrears and the tenant's liability before passing any order under Section 13(6), ensuring strict compliance with the statutory provisions governing rent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller pass an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and frame issues in the same order?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Must a Rent Controller hold an inquiry into the amount of rent due before passing an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Deputy Director Education And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat And Others vs The State1997 MLD 591 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassnain vs University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila And 2 Other1997 CLC 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasnain Sajid Sial vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1997 MLD 23 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Raza vs The State1997 MLD 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haq Nawaz Bhalli vs The Administrator, Zila Council, Narowal And 2 Other1997 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The Federal Government of Pakistan And 3 Other1997 CLC 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Tariq and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs District Health Officer, Gujranwala1997 PLC (C. S.) 3 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib vs Sultan Ahmed Khan1997 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar and 37 others vs Government of the Punjab1997 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar And 37 Other vs Government of the Punjab1997 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz Butt vs Metropolitan Corporation Limited Through Administrator, Lahore1997 CLC 55 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-28
  civil revisionwritten statementstriking off defencepenal provisionscontumacious conductadjournmentpermanent injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which set aside the trial court's order striking off the respondent's defence and decreeing the petitioner's permanent injunction suit. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower appellate court correctly interpreted the period for filing a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following its amendment by Act XIV of 1994, and whether the trial court properly invoked its power to strike off the defence. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of law by holding that the outer limit for filing a written statement remained 90 days instead of the reduced 30-day period. The High Court further held that where a written statement is specifically required by the court through a speaking order and the defendant displays contumacious conduct by repeatedly failing to file it without adequate explanation, the penal provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are rightly invoked. The petition was consequently allowed and the trial court's judgment restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the outer limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was reduced to 30 days by Act XIV of 1994?
  • Under what circumstances can a defendant's defence be struck off under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does a routine adjournment for filing a written statement satisfy the legal requirement of the court 'requiring' a written statement to attract penal consequences?
  • Is a speaking order showing application of mind mandatory before invoking the penal provisions of striking off a defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farrukh Fayyaz vs Aitchison College, Lahore Through Governor Of Punjab Chairman Of The Board Of Governors, Shahrahequaid Azam, Lahore And Another1997 MLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Alwary vs Punjab University Through Controller Of Examination, Lahore And 3 Other1997 CLC 727 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal vs The State1997 MLD 2527 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faheem vs The State -1997 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Daud vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The D.I.-G. Police, Gujranwala And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 944 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Divisional Engineer Telephones, Bahawalpur And Other1997 CLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baqir Ali vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 942 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Mst. Ghulam Aisha1997 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad vs The State And Another1997 MLD 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And 21997 PLC 6 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Kazim Hussain And 2 Other1997 MLD 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Petitoner vs Punjab Province Through Collector, Sheikhupura1997 CLC 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim And Other vs Telecommunication And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12
  regularization of servicedaily wageswork-charge employeesconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsdiscrimination in public employmentwrit jurisdictionstatutory corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had been serving as daily wages/ad hoc Telephone Operators in the Telephone and Telegraphic Department and subsequent successor entities since early 1990, challenged the termination of their services and the refusal of the authorities to regularize them. They contended that arbitrary appointments and regularizations of junior employees and outsiders were made on political considerations under directions of the Prime Minister's Secretariat, violating their fundamental rights. The core legal question concerned whether the arbitrary termination of long-serving daily-wage employees and the bypassing of their seniority for political appointments in a statutory corporation violates constitutional guarantees of equality and due process. The Lahore High Court held that the selective regularization of juniors and outsiders while bypassing long-serving daily-wage employees is arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 2A, 25, 27, 3, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court ruled that a statutory company is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199, declared the termination of employees appointed prior to January 1, 1996 to be without lawful authority, and directed the respondents to formulate a policy for regularizing eligible workmen.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government-owned company created by a statute is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the regularization of junior daily-wage employees or outsiders over senior long-serving employees on political grounds violate Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are daily-wage or work-charge employees who have served for a long duration entitled to be considered for permanent absorption and regularization in service?
  • Whether the termination of daily-wage employees appointed prior to January 1, 1996, without considering them for regularisation while regularising juniors, is lawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Farzana Bibi1997 MLD 520 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khokhar vs Medical Superintendent, Allied1997 PLC (C.S.) 652 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khokhar vs Medical Superintendent Allied Hospital1997 PLC (C.S.) 652 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Gondal, Subinspector, Police Station Shakargarh1997 PLD Lahore 614 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Gondal vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Alias Kalia vs The State1997 MLD 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq And Another vs Sardar Allah Yar And Other1997 MLD 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2197 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderocular evidenceself-defensecommutation of sentencecommon intentiontwo versions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants by the trial court for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence versus the defense's plea of self-defense, the proof of motive, and the appropriate sentencing. The High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of most appellants through the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, the defense's version was improbable and unsupported by evidence. The Court found the motive unproven and, consequently, commuted the death sentence of the principal accused to life imprisonment. Furthermore, the Court acquitted one appellant due to lack of corroborative evidence and set aside the convictions under sections 148 and 149, substituting them with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that in cases of two conflicting versions, the court must weigh the evidence to determine which is more probable, and that the failure to prove motive may justify the commutation of a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • When two conflicting versions of an occurrence are presented, what is the legal standard for determining which version is more probable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a crime justify the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can a conviction under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the evidence fails to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly?
  • Is the testimony of injured eye-witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction despite minor discrepancies in their statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Station House Officer and others1997 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29
  quashment of FIRsui jurisvalidity of marriageWali consentpolice investigationfundamental rightswrit jurisdictionMuhammadan Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, alleging kidnapping and illicit intercourse. The core legal questions concerned the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in police investigations under Article 199 of the Constitution and the validity of a marriage contracted by a sui juris woman without the consent of her Wali or parents. The Court held that the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to intervene in police investigations where fundamental rights are encroached upon or where the investigation is motivated by mala fide reasons, rejecting the argument that police actions are sacrosanct. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Muhammadan Law, a sui juris Muslim woman who has attained puberty is competent to contract a valid marriage based on her own free will and consent. The Court ruled that parental or Wali consent is not a mandatory ingredient for the validity of such a marriage, and equating such unions to prostitution is legally untenable. Consequently, the FIR was quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in a police investigation?
  • Is the consent of a Wali or parents a mandatory requirement for the validity of a marriage contracted by a sui juris Muslim woman under Muhammadan Law?
  • Can a police investigation be challenged in a writ petition if it is motivated by mala fide reasons or violates fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1997 MLD 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Paul and others vs Managing Director, WAPDA and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 946 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Paul And Other vs Managing Director, WAPDA And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 946 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Younas Butt, Inspector/S.H.O., Police1997 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court
  police investigationconstitutional jurisdictiontransfer of investigationstatutory dutyabuse of powerpolitical influencejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was moved for the recalling or modification of an order dated 30-5-1996 concerning the entrustment and supervision of the police investigation in a multiple murder case. The core legal question revolved around the scope and limitations of the High Court's power to intervene in the investigation of a cognizable case, control investigating agencies, or direct the police in the performance of their statutory duties. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that while the judiciary ordinarily should not interfere with police investigations or nominate investigating officers, the superior courts are fully competent to intervene under constitutional jurisdiction where an investigation is conducted mala fide, is without jurisdiction, or where statutory powers are abused or not performed honestly due to political or outside interference. The court emphasized that judicial review is essential to maintain the rule of law and ensure that investigating authorities perform their statutory duties fairly and independently.

  Questions settled

  • What are the scope and limitations of the High Court's power to intervene in the investigation of a cognizable case by the police?
  • Can the High Court interfere in police investigations where there is an abuse of statutory power or a failure to exercise statutory duty?
  • Does the High Court possess the power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash or transfer an investigation?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to correct investigation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Hussain and others1997 P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Bhatti vs Government of the Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 84 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And 3 Others vs The State1997 M LD 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Imdad Hussain1997 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08
  pre-emptionfunctus officiopecuniary jurisdictionreturn of plaintlimitation act section 14consent decreesubstantive justicecourt fee and valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit originally filed in 1971 for possession of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit on 22-7-1974 based on consent of the parties. Subsequently, upon an application by the plaintiff under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the trial court ordered the return of the plaint on the erroneous assumption that a determination of a higher sale price/market value ousted its pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff then filed a fresh suit in a court of higher jurisdiction, which was ultimately dismissed on limitation, but restored by the lower appellate court. The Lahore High Court examined whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to return the plaint after passing a decree and how pecuniary jurisdiction in pre-emption suits is determined. The High Court held that once a decree is passed, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot subsequently order the return of the plaint without legally setting aside the decree, and that pecuniary jurisdiction in pre-emption suits is governed by the valuation under the Suits Valuation Act rather than the market value or sale consideration. Upholding substantive justice over technicalities, the appeal was dismissed while granting extended time to the pre-emptor to deposit the requisite amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court become functus officio after passing a decree, and can it subsequently order the return of the plaint without expressly recalling the decree?
  • Is the pecuniary jurisdiction in a pre-emption suit determined by the market value or sale price of the subject-matter, or by the valuation made under the Suits Valuation Act?
  • Whether a plaintiff is entitled to the exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when proceedings before a wrong forum arose due to a court's erroneous view on pecuniary jurisdiction?
  • Can a party rely on technicalities to set aside a consent decree where the mistake regarding jurisdiction was shared by the court and both parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Imam Yousaf And Another vs University of the Punjab, Lahore1997 MLD 452 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Others vs Habib Ahmad And Other1997 MLD 2614 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Another vs Mehr Salabat Khan, Additional District1997 MLD 773 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State And 2 Other1997 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Nizami vs Government of the Punjab And Other1997 MLD 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Bhatti and others vs Government of Punjab and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 936 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Bhatti And Other vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 936 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore and 4 others1997 P Cr. L J 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1997 MLD 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Bahauddin Zakariya University Through Its1997 CLC 280 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11
  educational lawretrospective applicationexamination criteriaequitable treatmentwrit petitionuniversity regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, who appeared in the Bachelor of Education 2nd Annual Examination, 1990-91, challenged the Bahauddin Zakariya University's refusal to declare him as having passed the 'Teaching of English' paper. Although he secured 33% marks, the university required 40% for his specific examination year. The petitioner argued that because the university subsequently reduced the pass criteria to 33% for the 1992-93 examination and granted relief to other candidates who had challenged the 40% requirement, he was entitled to the same equitable treatment. The core legal question was whether a change in examination criteria, specifically a reduction in pass marks, could be applied retrospectively to candidates who appeared in earlier examinations under the previous scheme. The Court held that the new scheme, introduced for the 1992-93 examination, did not have retrospective effect. The Court reasoned that extending such benefits to earlier candidates would create an unmanageable precedent and that the petitioner was bound by the regulations in force at the time of his examination. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a change in examination pass criteria be applied retrospectively to candidates who appeared in earlier examinations?
  • Does the principle of equitable treatment entitle a candidate to the benefit of a new examination scheme introduced after their examination year?
  • Is a university bound to apply reduced pass marks to candidates who sat for an examination under an older scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsraf vs Water and Power Development Authority1997 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan-Ul-Haq vs Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad And 11 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Mubarak Ali Anjum And 3 Other1997 MLD 769 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And 2 Others vs Muhammad Akbar Khan1997 CLC 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 951 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Iqbal vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2083 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida vs S.H.O. P.S. Ghumand Pur1997 MLD 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →