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.

• Mst. Zaib UN Nisa vs The State1997 MLD 2596 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wazir Begum Alias Waziran Bibi vs Additional District Judge, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif And Other1997 CLC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-06
  amendment of pleadingswritten statementwithdrawal of admissionwrit jurisdictionmaintainability of constitutional petitionrevisional orderdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Civil Court and the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the petitioner's application to amend their written statement in a pending declaratory suit. The core legal questions were whether a defendant can amend a written statement to withdraw a previous admission, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a revisional order passed by a District Court in civil litigation. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, citing Supreme Court precedents establishing that revisional orders arising from civil proceedings cannot be challenged via constitutional petitions. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court held that a party cannot be permitted to amend pleadings to resile from an admission made in an earlier written statement, especially when the amendment is not bona fide and seeks to introduce an inconsistent case. The Court emphasized that while mistakes of fact may sometimes be rectified, courts retain discretion to refuse amendments intended to revoke admissions, particularly when the request lacks good faith and contradicts the established record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant amend a written statement to withdraw an admission made in the original pleadings?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a revisional order passed by a District Court in civil litigation?
  • Under what circumstances can a court refuse an application for the amendment of a written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wallan vs Hassan Nawaz Tarar and others1997 P Cr. L J 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tehmina Khan vs Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana1997 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surria Bibi vs Additional District Judge Khanpur And 2 Other1997 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Bibi And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station Chaubara, District Layyah And 2 Other1997 MLD 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Shabbir vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan And Other1997 CLC 497 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Azizan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sattan Bibi vs Rana Nasrullah Khan, S.H.O., P.S. Massen, Jhang And 31997 MLD 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwar Begum vs Muhammad Sharif And Another1997 CLC 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Darwesh Muhammad1997 PLD Lahore 730 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29
  pre-emption suitpersonal appearancecivil revisiondismissal of suitdiscretionary powerCode of Civil Procedureplaint signature
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the trial court due to her failure to appear in person as directed. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff failed to appear to clarify whether she had signed the plaint, despite being represented by counsel and a special attorney. The Lahore High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the trial court's direction for personal appearance was justified because the defendant specifically challenged the authenticity of the plaint's signature—a fact only the plaintiff could personally verify. The Court held that when a party fails to comply with a court's lawful direction to appear without a valid excuse, and the presence is essential for the adjudication of a specific factual dispute, the court is empowered to pronounce judgment against the defaulting party. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court acted within its discretionary authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dismiss a suit under Order X Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a party fails to appear in person without a lawful excuse?
  • Is the personal appearance of a plaintiff mandatory when the authenticity of the signature on the plaint is specifically challenged by the defendant?
  • Does the presence of a counsel or special attorney satisfy the requirement of personal appearance when the court specifically orders a party to appear to resolve a factual dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Sheikh vs Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab1997 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakeena Bibi And Another vs S.H.O., P.S. Lalian, District Jhang And 21997 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi vs Station House Officer, Jaranwala, District1997 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi and another vs Incharge, Chouki No.2,</p> <p>Police1997 PLD Lahore 666 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02
  constitutional petitionpolice harassmentvalid marriagefundamental rightsright to lifeprotection of familydowergift
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a newly married couple seeking restraint against police harassment and interference in their marital life. The core legal question involved the extent of police authority to interfere in marriages contracted without parental consent and the constitutional protection afforded to family life. The Lahore High Court held that major and sane Muslims have the fundamental right to contract marriage of their own free will, and once a bona fide marriage is validly contracted, the police have no jurisdiction to disrupt the marital life, harass the couple, or attempt to secure a divorce through coercion. The Court ruled that family disputes regarding the validity of a marriage fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Family or Civil Courts. Laying down key principles, the Court emphasized that Article 35 read with Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan mandates the State and its functionaries to protect marriage, family, and the personal liberty of citizens to live together peacefully, while outlining factors such as adequate dower or subsequent gifts of immovable property to determine the bona fides of a marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police have the authority to interfere in the marital life of a couple who have contracted a marriage without the consent of their parents?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the right of a married couple to live together peacefully without harassment?
  • Can the police compel a woman to separate from her husband or deliver her to the custody of her parents in matrimonial disputes?
  • What factors should investigating officers consider when determining the bona fides of a marriage allegedly contracted to cover up a criminal offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Syed And Another vs The S.H.O., Shahdara, Lahore And Another1997 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Shamas And Another vs Muhammad Afzal And 4 Other1997 CLC 332 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Latif vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Communication And 4 Other1997 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bibi vs Muhammad Arif, A.S.I. And 3 Other1997 MLD 158 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safdar Jan vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1553 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05
  court witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.prosecution evidencefilling lacunastrial court discretioncriminal revisionwitness summoning
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to summon her son, Abdul Aziz, as a court witness in a murder trial, alleging his testimony was material regarding an altercation between the deceased and the accused. The trial court rejected the application, citing the witness's absence during the police investigation, his omission from the calendar of witnesses under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the significant delay in filing the application after the trial had commenced. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the power under Section 540 is intended to advance the interests of justice rather than to allow parties to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the complainant's long silence and failure to demonstrate the necessity of the witness's testimony justified the refusal. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's order and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the application is filed with significant delay?
  • Is the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to allow the prosecution to fill gaps in its evidence?
  • Does the failure to include a witness in the calendar of witnesses under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the court from summoning them under Section 540?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Bibi vs Amanat Ali1997 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Shaheen vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17
  pre-arrest bailsealed FIRforgery and cheatingnon-cognizable offenseswomen bail exceptionconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by Mst. Razia Shaheen, who was accused in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner/Administrator of Bahawalnagar Public School regarding a tampered result card. The core legal questions involved the legality of sealing a First Information Report and whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the offenses and her academic qualifications. The Lahore High Court held that neither the police nor any executive authority has the power under substantive or procedural law to seal an FIR. On merits, following established judicial dicta, since sections 468 and 471 are non-cognizable without a magistrate's permission and section 420 is bailable, and given that simple graduation was the required qualification for the teaching job (making the discrepancy in M.A. marks immaterial for wrongful gain), the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, further supported by the statutory proviso for females under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down are that an FIR cannot be sealed by any authority under Pakistani law, and pre-arrest bail is warranted in cases involving bailable or non-cognizable charges without proper authorization where no wrongful gain is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authority or the police has the legal power to seal a First Information Report?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the offenses under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code are non-cognizable without a magistrate's warrant and section 420 is bailable?
  • Does a discrepancy in marks for a higher degree constitute wrongful gain or loss when simple graduation is the requisite qualification for employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasoolan Bibi vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rani Bibi vs Station House Officer and others1997 P Cr. L J 974 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran Bibi And Another vs Mst. Noor Begum1997 CLC 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  execution of decreelimitation perioddoctrine of mergercivil revisionappellate decreetime-barred execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a dispute over land where the petitioners challenged an appellate order regarding the limitation period for executing a decree. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for executing a trial court decree commences from the date of that decree or from the date of the final appellate court decision when an appeal remained pending against a co-defendant. The Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the appellate court's decision that the execution application was filed within the statutory limitation period. The Court affirmed the doctrine of merger, holding that when an appeal is preferred, the decree of the trial court merges into the decree of the appellate court. Consequently, the limitation period for executing a decree is suspended or commences only from the date of the final decision of the appellate court, as established in the cited precedents of Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey and Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Asghar Shah.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for the execution of a decree commence from the date of the trial court's decree or the final appellate court's decision?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply to the limitation period for execution when an appeal is pending against a co-defendant?
  • Is the execution of a decree suspended under Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 while an appeal is sub judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Elahi alias Bibi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22
  post-arrest bailZina Hudood Ordinancefurther inquirystatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.police investigation innocencecomplainant affidavit
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 148 of 1996 registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and sections 380 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail after being declared innocent during police investigation and where the alleged abductee exonerated the co-accused in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners were found innocent during investigation, the police recommended case cancellation, the victim's statement absolved the accused, and the complainant submitted an affidavit stating the case stemmed from misunderstanding, the matter warranted further inquiry. The court admitted both petitioners to post-arrest bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of exculpatory investigation findings and victim statements favoring the accused during further inquiry attracts statutory bail entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent during the police investigation?
  • Does a statement of the alleged abductee under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 denying abduction provide sufficient ground for bail?
  • Can bail be granted under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the guilt of the accused is subject to further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Mst. Wazir B4gum1997 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17
  ejectment petitionrent enhancementdefault in rentvalid tendersublettingsecond appealPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged an ejectment order concerning a commercial shop, grounded in allegations of default in rent payment, subletting, and bona fide personal use. The primary legal questions concerned whether rent enhancement under Section 5-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is automatic or requires prior notice, and whether the tenant’s continued deposit of rent in a previously concluded court case constituted a valid legal tender. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that the statutory enhancement of rent under Section 5-A is automatic by operation of law, requiring no notice to the tenant. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a tenant must first tender rent directly to the landlord; depositing rent in court is only permissible upon the landlord's refusal. Consequently, depositing rent in a court case that has already reached finality is invalid. Additionally, the Court affirmed that clerical errors in treasury challans, such as omitting the landlord's name, invalidate the tender, thereby confirming the tenant's default and justifying the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Is the enhancement of rent for non-residential buildings under Section 5-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 automatic, or does it require prior notice to the tenant?
  • Does the deposit of rent in a court case that has already concluded constitute a valid tender of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Do clerical errors in treasury challans, such as the omission of the landlord's name, render the payment of rent invalid?
  • Is a tenant required to tender rent directly to the landlord before depositing it in the court of the Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtiar Fatima vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan And 2 Other1997 MLD 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25
  compulsory acquisitionfundamental rightsright to propertydelayed compensationwrit jurisdictionland acquisitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns a landowner whose agricultural land was compulsorily acquired by the State in 1994 for the construction of a spur bund on the River Chenab. Despite the passage of two and a half years, the petitioner had not received full compensation, as the Irrigation Department failed to deposit the necessary funds with the Land Acquisition Collector. The core legal question was whether the State's failure to pay compensation for acquired land within a reasonable time violates the fundamental right to property. The Court held that the State cannot deprive a citizen of property without compensation, as guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that the failure to pay compensation promptly constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, which the High Court is empowered to enforce under Article 199(1)(c). Consequently, the Court directed the Secretary of the Irrigation Department to ensure the release and deposit of the requisite funds by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could lead to the attachment of the salaries of responsible officials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the State to pay compensation for acquired land within a reasonable time violate the fundamental right to property under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court issue directions to government functionaries to enforce fundamental rights under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the State permitted to compulsorily acquire private property without providing compensation in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Mai vs S.H.O., P.S. City Kahror Pakka, District Lodhran And Another1997 MLD 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi alias Saidan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Akhtar vs Station House Officer and others1997 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Parveen and 3 others vs Ahmed Ali Zaffar, Judicial1997 PLD Lahore 208 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20
  search warrantwrongful confinementseparation of judiciary from executiveterritorial jurisdictionJudicial MagistrateExecutive Magistratewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order issued by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kabirwala, which granted a search warrant under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of a woman allegedly wrongfully confined by her relatives. The core legal questions were whether a Judicial Magistrate possesses the authority to exercise powers under Section 100, Cr.P.C., and whether the Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to issue such a warrant for a person residing outside his jurisdiction. The Court held that following the separation of the judiciary from the executive, Judicial Magistrates are tasked with deciding criminal cases involving penal offences, while executive functions, including proceedings under Section 100, Cr.P.C., fall within the exclusive domain of Executive Magistrates. Furthermore, the Court found the impugned order illegal due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the subject resided outside the Magistrate's assigned area. The ratio establishes that Judicial Magistrates lack the authority to perform executive duties such as issuing search warrants for wrongfully confined persons, which remains the province of Executive Magistrates, and that such warrants cannot be issued beyond a Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class have the authority to issue a search warrant under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate issue a search warrant for a person residing outside their territorial jurisdiction?
  • Are proceedings under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered judicial or executive functions?
  • Does a woman living with her parents after marital separation constitute wrongful confinement under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karim Khatoon vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karamat Bibi vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Lahore And 3 Other ,1997 CLC 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jindwaddi Alias Jindan vs The State1997 MLD 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela Khatoon And 4 Others vs Sattar Brig And 2 Other1997 CLC 1691 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29
  rehabilitation mutationscivil court jurisdictionSection 12(2) CPCinheritance disputepedigree tableRe-settlement Schemeadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an appellate court's decree in a suit involving inheritance rights and the validity of land mutations. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of civil courts to challenge mutations sanctioned by Rehabilitation Authorities and the maintainability of a separate suit to challenge decrees on grounds of fraud, given the bar under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that mutations sanctioned by Rehabilitation Authorities under the Re-settlement Scheme are immune from civil court interference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly bars separate suits challenging the validity of a judgment or decree on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, requiring such challenges to be made via application to the court that passed the original decree. On merits, the Court found the respondents failed to establish their pedigree or entitlement to the inheritance. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, emphasizing the finality of rehabilitation proceedings and procedural bars for challenging decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Are mutations sanctioned by Rehabilitation Authorities immune from challenge in civil courts?
  • Can a separate suit be filed to challenge a decree on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation in light of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine succession to the estate of confirmed allottees who passed away in Pakistan?
  • Is a document more than 30 years old admissible as evidence if it comes from the proper custody of the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Mai vs Additional District Judge And Another1997 CLC 742 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Elahi vs Bashir Ahmad1997 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitioniddat periodvoid marriagefamily court decreemala fide proceedingsabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 268 of 1995 registered under sections 148, 149, 452, and 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Saddar Rahimyar Khan. The core legal question concerned whether an F.I.R. stemming from mala fides, fabricated marriage claims during the period of iddat, and designed to harass parties and abuse legal process can be quashed by the High Court. The Lahore High Court held that the F.I.R. was a fabricated and mala fide attempt to separate the petitioner from her lawful husband through fraudulent proceedings and a void second marriage, and thus ordered its quashment while dismissing a rival writ petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses the constitutional and inherent jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash a criminal F.I.R. when it is established to be mala fide, without lawful authority, and an abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash a criminal F.I.R. that is shown to be mala fide and an abuse of the process of law?
  • What is the legal status of a marriage contract entered into during the period of iddat under Islamic law?
  • Whether a Judge Family Court is competent to set aside an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage upon discovering it was procured through fraud and impersonation?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before Family Courts in view of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humma Sultana Butt vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary1997 MLD 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzar Begum vs Inspector, Police Post Shahdara Town, Lahore1997 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghosia Naz vs Deputy Education Officer1997 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-07
  constitutional petitionnon-payment of salaryfundamental rightsright to lifedignity of manservice lawdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns a female school teacher who, despite continuously performing her duties, was denied salary for over a year due to administrative objections following her transfer between education departments. The core legal question addressed is whether the non-payment of salary to an employee who is actively performing duties constitutes a violation of constitutional rights. The Court held that the withholding of salary under such circumstances is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 9 includes the right to a civilized existence, and the right to dignity under Article 14 is compromised when an employee is deprived of their livelihood. The Court directed the relevant authorities to ensure immediate payment of the outstanding salary and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials responsible for the delay. The key principle laid down is that the non-payment of salary to a government employee performing their duties is a breach of constitutional obligations, and state functionaries responsible for such negligence are liable for disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-payment of salary to a government employee who is actively performing duties violate the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the right to a civilized standard of living?
  • Can state functionaries be held liable for disciplinary action for failing to pay salaries to employees in a timely manner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazeelat Sultana vs The Province of the Punjab through Chief1997 PLD Lahore 260 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Malik and 3 others vs Rana Muhammad Iftikharuddin and 71997 PLD Lahore 733 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar vs Imam Din And Another1997 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amir vs Soini1997 MLD 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsecondary evidencecivil revisionpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, which set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit regarding a gift mutation alleged to be a sale transaction. The core legal question concerns the proper pleading and proof of the statutory demands (Talbs) required in pre-emption law, specifically Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, and the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a written notice without secondary evidence permission. The Lahore High Court held that Talb-i-Muwathibat must be made immediately upon knowledge of the transaction, and where the pleadings and evidence show it was made afterward upon going to the respondent, it is legally flawed. Furthermore, the Court held that oral evidence cannot replace the production of the written notice of Talb-i-Ishhad unless proper foundational requirements for secondary evidence are met. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine as the petitioner failed to prove the due performance of Talbs.

  Questions settled

  • Must Talb-i-Muwathibat be made right at the moment a person comes to know of the transaction?
  • Can oral evidence be produced to prove a written notice of Talb-i-Ishhad without fulfilling the requirements for secondary evidence?
  • Does failure to properly perform Talb-i-Muwathibat render subsequent Talbs inconsequent in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amir Begum vs Manzoor Ahmad1997 MLD 513 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Perveen vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha vs Rahim Bakhsh and others1997 PLD Lahore 649 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-07
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadcivil revisionPardahnashin ladystatutory requirementsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioner, Mst. Aisha, challenging a sale mutation of land. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's husband could validly perform the mandatory Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) on her behalf, and whether the subsequent Talb-i-Ishhad (demand with invocation) was legally established. The Lahore High Court held that the right of pre-emption, including the performance of Talbs, must be exercised personally by the pre-emptor. The Court rejected the argument that a husband acts as an automatic representative for his wife in such statutory matters, noting that even a power of attorney cannot retrospectively validate a Talb-i-Muwathibat made by a non-authorized person. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere production of a copy of a notice for Talb-i-Ishhad, without the accompanying postal receipt, is insufficient to prove the demand under the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that failure to personally perform the necessary Talbs extinguishes the right of pre-emption, and upheld the lower courts' decisions dismissing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband validly perform the Talb-i-Muwathibat on behalf of his wife in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is the production of a copy of a notice sufficient to prove Talb-i-Ishhad without the corresponding postal receipt?
  • Does the law distinguish between male and female pre-emptors regarding the personal performance of Talbs?
  • Can a power of attorney executed after the sale validate a Talb-i-Muwathibat performed by a husband prior to the execution of said power?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bibi vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral Police, Multan and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Parveen and anothers vs The State and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 880 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst Naseem Iqbal, J vs Syed Shafqat Ahmed And Another1997 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zumurad Nasira vs Officer, Bahawalpur And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zumurad Nasira vs District Accounts Officer, Bahawalpur and 21997 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tahmina Daultana vs Hafiz Naeem-Ud-Din1997 PTD 821 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Rizwan vs Province of Punjab and others1997 PLD Lahore 580 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-16
  commercializationbuilding regulationsexecutive overreachconstitutional petitionresidential propertydelegation of powersnuisance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a grievance where a residential property adjacent to the petitioner's house was unlawfully converted into a commercial fitness institution (gymnasium) under directives issued by the Chief Minister, bypassing Lahore Development Authority (LDA) regulations. The core legal question centered on whether the Chief Minister or the Director-General of the LDA had the authority to relax building regulations and permit the commercial use of a residential property without formal commercialization procedures, and whether running a gymnasium constitutes a 'resident's profession' under the applicable building rules. The Lahore High Court held that running a gymnasium is a business rather than a profession, that the Chief Minister had no jurisdiction to issue directives permitting such commercial use or relaxation, and that the purported delegation of powers was ultra vires. The court established the principle that residential building regulations cannot be circumvented through executive overreach or dictated orders by higher authorities, and that statutory powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the governing law and regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does running a gymnasium constitute a 'resident's profession' allowing partial commercial use of a residential property under the Building Regulations 1984?
  • Can the Chief Minister legally issue directives to relax building regulations or permit the commercialization of residential premises?
  • Whether the Lahore Development Authority or its Director-General can delegate statutory powers to the Chief Minister as Chairman of the Authority.
  • Is an unauthorized commercial use of a residential building actionable by an affected neighbor without proving special injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manawar Bibi vs The State1997 MLD 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naseem Fida vs District Education Officer (S.E.), D.G. Khan And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 95 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Mehjabeen vs Government of the Punjab1997 PLC (C. S.) 271 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mohib Shah And 3 Others vs Mst. Jannat Bibi And Another1997 CLC 659 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23
  inheritancecustomary lawIslamic lawco-sharerrevision petitionlimitationWajib-ul-Arzburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an appellate court’s decree in favor of female heirs regarding their inheritance shares in agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the parties were governed by customary law or Islamic law, whether the suit was time-barred, and whether the revision petition was maintainable given the petitioners' failure to attach all necessary documents. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that customary law governed their inheritance, whereas the respondents successfully established the applicability of Islamic law through documentary evidence like the Wajib-ul-Arz. The Court affirmed that possession by one co-sharer is constructive possession for all, and the suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose upon the cessation of produce payments. Furthermore, the Court held the revision petition non-maintainable for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the filing of complete records. The judgment reiterated that in the absence of proven custom, personal law applies, and female heirs are entitled to their shares under Islamic law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the party asserting that inheritance is governed by custom rather than personal law?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the petitioner fails to furnish copies of all pleadings and documents?
  • Does the possession of land by one co-sharer constitute constructive possession on behalf of other co-sharers?
  • Does Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 apply retrospectively to female heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Wasim Khalida Khan vs Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing1997 PLD Lahore 738 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Miss Shazia Altaf vs The Secretary, Health Department, Government of1997 CLC 358 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Miss Misbah Masood vs Principal, Government College for Women1997 MLD 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mir Kabal vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Ali and another vs Regional Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1997 MLD 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Ali And Another vs Regional Commissioner of Income Tax1997 MLD 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Yasin Wattoo and others vs Government of Punjab and others1997 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-29
  second F.I.R.police investigationjudicial interferencehigh treasoncognizance of offenceconstitutional petitionquashment of F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) against the petitioners, arguing that it was illegal because a prior F.I.R. regarding the same incident had already been registered and that the police lacked authority to investigate without prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the registration of a second F.I.R. concerning the same incident is legally barred and whether the police are precluded from investigating offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without prior government sanction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal bar to registering a second F.I.R. if it discloses different allegations or additional details of cognizable offences. The Court affirmed that police investigation is a statutory duty immune from judicial interference unless mala fides are proven. The key principle laid down is that the prohibition in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies only to a Court taking cognizance of an offence, not to the police's power to register a case and conduct an investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of a second F.I.R. regarding the same incident legally barred if it contains different allegations?
  • Does the requirement for government sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the police's power to investigate or only to the Court's power to take cognizance?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an ongoing police investigation before the submission of a challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs The State1997 MLD 2484 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Hanif vs The Station House Officer, Police Station1997 P Cr. L J 1730 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Ali vs Nasir Ahmad Basra And 10 Other1997 CLC 77 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1997 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30
  provincial autonomyconstitutional breakdownvote of confidencefloor testemergency proclamationmalice in lawjudicial reviewchief minister
  Summary & questions settled

  Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, the former Chief Minister of Punjab, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging a presidential proclamation under Article 234 issued on September 5, 1995, his subsequent removal following a short-notice vote of confidence order under Article 130(5), and the election of Sardar Muhammad Arif Nakai as the new Chief Minister. The core legal questions involved the scope and objective criteria of Article 234 regarding provincial constitutional breakdown, whether ministerial resignations justify invoking emergency powers, and whether a Chief Minister directed to cease functioning can be ordered to obtain a vote of confidence under Article 130(5). The Lahore High Court held that the presidential proclamation was unconstitutional, lacking an objective nexus with constitutional failure, and that resignations of cabinet members do not constitute a constitutional breakdown. The Court also held that a Chief Minister placed under non-functional status by proclamation cannot be asked to take a confidence vote, and that the assessment of majority support must be tested strictly on the floor of the provincial assembly. Consequently, the Court struck down the proclamation, the removal order, and the subsequent election, restoring the petitioner to office subject to obtaining a vote of confidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the satisfaction of the President under Article 234 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for issuing a proclamation of failure of constitutional machinery is subjective or subject to objective judicial review?
  • Do resignations of provincial ministers constitute a valid legal ground or deadlock amounting to a breakdown of constitutional machinery under Article 234 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Chief Minister whose functions have been suspended under an Article 234 proclamation be lawfully required by the Governor to obtain a vote of confidence under Article 130(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the question of whether a Chief Minister commands the majority of the provincial assembly can be determined by executive assessment outside the assembly rather than through a floor test?
  • Does Article 236(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely bar superior courts from examining the constitutional validity and jurisdictional prerequisites of a proclamation issued under Article 234?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khalid Siraj And Others vs Khalid Siraj Industries (Pvt.) And Other1997 CLC 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zulfiqar Associates (Pvt.) Limited Through Mian Hameed Ahmad1997 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zam Zam Traders vs Income Tax Officer1997 PTD 40 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Z.A. Traders through Sole Proprietor Muhammad Siddique and anothers vs United Bank Limited through Manager, Samanabad Branch, Lahores1997 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14
  banking suitleave to defendinterlocutory ordermaintainability of appealBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These two appeals were filed under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 against the orders of the Special Court (Banking) dismissing the appellants' application for leave to appear and defend the banking suit. The office raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that the impugned orders were interim in nature. The core legal question was whether an order refusing leave to defend a suit under the Ordinance is a final order or an interlocutory order barring an appeal under the proviso to section 12. The Lahore High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable because the suit was still pending before the Special Court, and an order refusing leave to defend does not dispose of the entire case and is interlocutory in nature. The Court laid down the principle that orders by which the controversy is not finally decided are interim, and no appeal lies against an interlocutory order that does not dispose of the entire case before the Special Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies against an order dismissing an application for leave to appear and defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is an order refusing leave to defend a suit considered an interim or final order?
  • Does the proviso to section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 bar appeals from interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waqas Enterprises And Another vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Lahore And 2 Other1997 CLC 675 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Sarwar & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. through Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti, Chief1997 PTD (Trib) 1138 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Sante International (Pvt.) Limited and another vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone B, Lahore and another1997 PTD 819 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.M. Sharif Farooq Habib Ur Rehman Through S.M. Sharif Farooq1997 MLD 936 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muzzamal Brothers vs The Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PLD Lahore 36 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-14
  customs assessmentredemption finesummary adjudicationestoppel by conductbill of entryout of chargeconstitutional petitionPCT heading
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of an appeal and revision by customs authorities regarding the classification and assessment of imported rubber scrap consignments. The core legal question was whether an importer, having voluntarily sought summary adjudication, paid a redemption fine, and taken delivery of goods, can subsequently challenge the customs assessment and classification of those goods. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was estopped by their own conduct. By requesting summary adjudication and accepting the release of the goods against a redemption fine, the petitioner waived the right to contest the findings. The court affirmed that once goods have passed "out of charge," they are no longer available for physical examination, rendering any subsequent challenge to their classification or assessment legally untenable. Furthermore, Section 29 of the Customs Act, 1969, acts as a statutory bar to the alteration or amendment of a bill of entry once the goods have been cleared. The petitioner’s voluntary submission to the summary process precludes later litigation regarding the merits of the initial assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an importer challenge the customs assessment of goods after voluntarily requesting summary adjudication and taking delivery of the goods?
  • Does the release of goods 'out of charge' bar the subsequent alteration or amendment of a bill of entry under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is an importer estopped from challenging customs findings after paying a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mubeen Enterprises Limited Through Muhammad Mubeen Butt vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Finance Division, Customs Department, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And 3 Other1997 MLD 424 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehrban Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad through Muhammad1997 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehran Flex International Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation1997 PTD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehran Feed Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1997 PTD 68 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Malik Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs Syed Mehmood Hussain1997 MLD 188 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hohnson and Phillips (Pakistan) Ltd. Through Chief Executive vs Sahibzada Muhammad Ayaz And Another1997 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20
  arbitration agreementstay of proceedingsarbitration clausecivil suitvague arbitration clauseenforceability of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Civil Judge dismissing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which sought to stay civil proceedings in favor of arbitration. The core legal question was whether the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was sufficiently definite and enforceable to warrant staying the civil suit. The appellant argued that the clause mandated arbitration, while the respondent contended the clause was vague, uncertain, and inapplicable because a second defendant was not a party to the agreement. The Court held that for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable under the Arbitration Act, 1940, it must be a clear, written agreement to submit specific differences to arbitration. The Court emphasized that an arbitration clause that is vague, indeterminate, or indefinite cannot serve as a basis for staying legal proceedings. Finding the arbitration clause in question to be deficient and uncertain, the Court upheld the dismissal of the application, affirming that the nature of the dispute must be clearly defined within the arbitration agreement itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitration agreement that is vague, indeterminate, or indefinite be enforced to stay civil proceedings?
  • What are the essential requirements for an arbitration agreement to be valid under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does an arbitration clause apply to a dispute where one of the defendants is not a party to the arbitration agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hilal Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar1997 MLD 795 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ayub Ice Factory, Sheikhupura vs Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Region, Lahore and 4 others1997 PTD 61 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amin Bricks Company, Faisalabad vs Commissioner of Income-1997 PTD 76 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Meraj Din alias Maja vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ellahi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Mst. Gafuran Bibi And Another1997 CLC 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ahmad And 12 Others vs Aziz And 2 Other1997CLC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali alia, Booba vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alam vs Station House Officer and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mazhar vs The State1997 MLD 1553 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ahmad Qureshi vs Muhammad Ilyas Qureshi1997 CLC 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03
  post-arrest bailminorityQatl-e-AmdQisas and Diyatfurther inquiryTazirprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns a petitioner accused of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a minor accused of murder is entitled to bail when they are exempt from Qisas and potentially liable only to Diyat or Tazir, depending on their maturity. The court held that the petitioner, being 13 years old at the time of the offense, is a minor under the relevant statutory definition. Consequently, the petitioner is not liable to Qisas. The court further held that determining whether the petitioner possessed sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of their act—thereby attracting Tazir—is a question of fact requiring evidence at trial. As such, the case falls under the category of further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Because the petitioner is not subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, bail was granted. The court also clarified that police findings based solely on Qasam/Niyan without corroborating evidence cannot supersede eye-witness accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a minor accused of Qatl-e-Amd entitled to bail on the ground that they are not liable to Qisas?
  • Does the determination of whether a minor had sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of their act constitute a question of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can police investigation findings based solely on Qasam/Niyan override eye-witness accounts in a bail application?
  • Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a minor who is not liable to Qisas for Qatl-e-Amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Maula Dad Khan And Others vs The Provincial Government of the Punjab And Other1997 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →