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.

• Haq Dad Khan vs District Magistrate, Mianwali1997 P Cr. L J 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderapplication of mindcoram non judiceconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedycriminal prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Mianwali, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960. The petitioner was detained based on allegations of being a notorious bad character and narcotics dealer involved in multiple criminal cases. The core legal question was whether the detention order was passed with an independent application of mind or merely based on police recommendations, and whether the grounds cited—specifically pending criminal cases—constituted valid legal grounds for preventive detention. The Court held that the detention order was passed mechanically without independent objective assessment and relied on extraneous considerations, specifically pending criminal charges. The Court ruled that once authorities choose to prosecute an individual for criminal offences, those same charges cannot serve as grounds for preventive detention. Consequently, the order was declared a nullity and coram non judice. The Court further held that because the order was fundamentally flawed, the petitioner was not required to exhaust the alternative remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can pending criminal charges serve as valid grounds for an order of preventive detention?
  • Is a detention order passed mechanically upon police recommendation without independent application of mind sustainable in law?
  • Does the failure to exhaust the remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 bar a constitutional petition when the detention order is a nullity?
  • Is a detention order based on extraneous considerations considered coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Khan vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ahmed vs Imran Khurshid and 4 others1997 P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali Zardari vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali And 3 Others vs Sh. Muhammad Mazhar Ali,1997 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23
  gift-deedfraudburden of proofregistration endorsementwithholding evidencecivil revisiontenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute regarding the validity of a registered gift-deed executed by Ghulam Sabir in favor of the petitioners concerning agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the donor made a voluntary gift of the land or whether the deed was procured through fraud and misrepresentation, and whether the statutory registration endorsement under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908 constitutes sufficient proof of due execution when execution is specifically denied. The Lahore High Court held that where the execution of a registered document is challenged on the ground of fraud, the endorsement of registration alone does not dispense with the requirement of proving due execution through primary and available evidence, such as marginal witnesses. The court laid down the principle that the presumption attached to a registration certificate under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908 is limited and does not substitute for proof of execution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 or the Evidence Act, particularly when beneficiaries withhold better available evidence and suspicious circumstances surround the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the registration endorsement under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908 is per se sufficient proof of due execution when the execution of a document is denied?
  • Does the withholding of marginal witnesses and available primary evidence raise an adverse inference against the beneficiaries of a disputed gift-deed?
  • Whether a suit for cancellation of a gift-deed procured by fraud is barred by limitation when the defendants are in possession as non-occupancy tenants?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Mahboobur Rehman vs Iftikhar Ahmad Zia Ullah And 2 Other1997 MLD 2610 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Taj Din vs Administrator, Faisalabad Municipal Corporation And 3 Other1997 CLC 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Muhammad vs Muhammad Hassan Siddiqi And Other1997 MLD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Nazar Muhammad vs D.I.G. And Other1997 MLD 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1997 PLD Lahore 674 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf vs Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad And Another1997 MLD 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yaqoob vs Superintendent of Police, Vehari and 21997 P Cr. L J 876 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs Abdur Rashid and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-13
  rent executionpersona designataejectment orderdeeming clausemaintainability of appealrent default
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question the legality of an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge in rent execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Rent Controller or executing court during the execution of an ejectment order under section 17 of the relevant rent ordinance is open to appeal. The Lahore High Court held that orders passed during execution proceedings under section 17 of the Ordinance are not open to appeal, as the Rent Controller acts as a persona designata and the deeming provision treating the order as a civil court decree is strictly limited to execution purposes and does not attract general rights of appeal or revision under the Civil Procedure Code or the Ordinance. The court established the principle that while the Rent Controller possesses all necessary incidental powers to decide objection petitions and execute the order effectively, such execution orders do not carry the incidents of appeal or revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Rent Controller during the course of execution proceedings under section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is open to appeal?
  • Does the deeming provision in section 17 converting an ejectment order into a decree of a civil court convert the Rent Controller into a civil court for all purposes including appeals?
  • Can a Rent Controller hear and decide an objection petition regarding the executability of an ejectment order?
  • Are revision petitions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against orders passed by a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Nazir Qureshi vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1997 MLD 2559 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hayat vs Malik Ghulam Hussain Through Legal Heirs1997 CLC 271 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-18
  evacuee trust propertydisplaced persons compensation and rehabilitationabatement of appealsettlement commissionerpast and closed transactionvalidation of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Settlement Commissioner dismissing an application filed under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, regarding the determination of the status of a disputed property. The core legal questions involved the determination of whether the property in dispute was evacuee trust property or general evacuee property, the validity of delegation of powers under the Act, the effect of gross delay resulting in the abatement of the appeal, and the applicability of validation provisions under subsequent legislation. The Lahore High Court held that the property was general evacuee property rather than evacuee trust property, that previous settlement decisions had attained finality, that the appeal had abated due to a prolonged failure to bring on record all legal heirs, and that past transactions and orders were fully protected and validated by subsequent statutory enactments. The key principles laid down include the finality of settlement authorities' findings on property status, the legal effect of unchalleged orders, and the strict enforcement of abatement rules in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property subject to settlement proceedings and transfer via open auction constitutes evacuee trust property or general evacuee property?
  • Does an appeal abate when legal heirs are not fully and timely brought on record after the death of an appellant?
  • Are orders passed by Settlement Commissioners under delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner legally valid and binding if left unchallenged?
  • What is the effect of statutory validation provisions on past and closed transactions under the evacuee laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Anwar And Others vs The State And Other1997 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad vs S.S.P., Rahimyar Khan and others1997 P Cr. L J 2069 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-07
  Second FIRCross-versionCognizable offenceRegistration of FIRCriminal investigationWrit jurisdictionRight of private defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns the refusal of the police to register a second FIR regarding a murder incident, despite the petitioner presenting a distinct, counter-version of the occurrence. The core legal question was whether the police are obligated to register a second FIR when a cross-version of the same incident exists. The Court held that the police cannot assume the role of a judicial officer by pre-judging the veracity of competing versions at the registration stage. Consequently, the Court directed the Station House Officer to register the second FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint. The ratio established is that where a counter-version discloses a cognizable offense, the police have no option but to register the case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that investigating both versions equitably is essential to prevent judicial anarchy and ensure a fair trial. Furthermore, the investigation must be conducted in accordance with the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ensuring that the police do not engage in protracted, one-sided investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police refuse to register a second FIR when a counter-version of the same occurrence is presented?
  • Does the police officer have the authority to determine the veracity of competing versions of an occurrence at the stage of registering an FIR?
  • What is the legal obligation of the police when a complaint discloses a cognizable offense under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the registration of a second FIR necessary when the parties provide conflicting accounts of the time, place, and manner of a criminal occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qadir vs Zafar Shaheen1997 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-03
  pre-emption suitmandatory provisionstatutory interpretationdismissal of suitdeposit of sale pricecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to extend the time for depositing one-third of the sale price of the suit land. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, regarding the deposit of sale price, are mandatory or directory in nature. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions are mandatory. The Court reasoned that Section 24 contains an affirmative command for the deposit, a proviso prohibiting the extension of time beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit, and a specific consequence—dismissal of the suit—for non-compliance. Relying on established principles of statutory interpretation, the Court determined that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure followed by a penalty for non-compliance, it is mandatory. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the trial court lacked the authority to extend the time beyond the statutory limit, and the failure to deposit the amount within the prescribed period necessitated the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to deposit one-third of the sale price under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, mandatory or directory?
  • Does a court have the authority to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption money beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • What is the legal consequence under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, if a plaintiff fails to deposit the required one-third of the sale price within the time fixed by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 818 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Siddique Anwar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Gul Muhammad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State And 3 Other1997 MLD 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad Khan vs The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 7 others1997 PLD Lahore 643 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09
  Territorial jurisdictionConstitutional petitionSenate electionChief Election CommissionerWrit of quo warrantoFederal jurisdictionArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a challenge to the dismissal of an appeal by the Chief Election Commissioner regarding Senate election results for the North-West Frontier Province. The petitioner sought to declare the Commissioner's order, passed at Islamabad, as without lawful authority. The respondents challenged the Lahore High Court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that because the election occurred in Peshawar, only the High Court of the North-West Frontier Province had jurisdiction. The Court rejected this objection, holding that it possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction. It established that under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, a High Court has jurisdiction to challenge an act performed within its territorial limits by a functionary exercising federal authority. Since the Chief Election Commissioner performs functions for the entire Federation and the impugned appellate order was passed at Islamabad, the Lahore High Court is competent to adjudicate the matter. The Court distinguished this case from Sandalbar Enterprises, emphasizing that the location of the appellate decision and the federal nature of the authority are determinative factors for jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner at Islamabad if the underlying election occurred in another province?
  • Does the principle established in Sandalbar Enterprises preclude a High Court from exercising jurisdiction over an order passed within its territory by a federal functionary?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against an order passed by a federal authority simply because the order was issued within the Court's territorial limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd., Bahawalpur Through Intizar Ahmed, Manager1997 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sobia Bhatti vs Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State And 6 Other1997 MLD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court And Another1997 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Zulfiqar Ali And 4 Other1997 MLD 1798 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Administrator Municipal Committee, Mian Channu1997 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab Forest1997 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-19
  Constitutional petitionLand transferCondonation of delayRevenue recordGovernment litigationProcedural complianceThal Development AuthorityLimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside a 1984 land transfer order in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the land transfer, the Forest Department's claim of ownership, and whether the Department’s appeal against the initial transfer was time-barred and procedurally defective. The Court held that the Forest Department failed to produce evidence of ownership or possession, while the revenue records confirmed the land belonged to the Thal Development Authority, which validly transferred it to the petitioner’s predecessor. Furthermore, the Court found the Department’s appeal was hopelessly time-barred, as the delay was not sufficiently explained, and the Department failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for litigation against the Government under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the original transfer order. The judgment establishes that government departments must strictly observe procedural laws and that pursuing a wrong legal forum does not justify condoning inordinate delays.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pursuit of a review petition before a wrong forum constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing an appeal?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the naming of parties in suits by or against the Government applicable to appeals?
  • Can a government department challenge a land transfer based on an alleged executive charge without producing evidence of ownership or a valid conveyance deed?
  • Do subsequent entries in revenue records made during the pendency of a dispute affect the vested rights of a purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr.L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Shah vs The State1997 MLD 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur _BWP,1997 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore And 2 Other1997 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Khan1997 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1997 MLD 1629 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Meher Din Through Legal Heirs1997 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29
  grave and sudden provocationghairatmurder convictioncriminal appealappreciation of evidenceQatl-e-AmdIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt or if the appellant’s defense of grave and sudden provocation—alleging he found the deceased in a compromising position with his wife—was credible. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution’s narrative regarding the deceased’s travel and the presence of eye-witnesses to be inconsistent and improbable based on the physical evidence. Conversely, the court found the appellant’s version of events to be more plausible. Relying on established precedents and Islamic injunctions regarding "Ghairat" (honor), the court held that the appellant’s actions, taken under grave and sudden provocation, did not constitute an offence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. This judgment reaffirms the principle that killings committed under specific circumstances of grave and sudden provocation, particularly involving marital infidelity, may be treated as non-punishable under the prevailing interpretation of Islamic law and relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's version of the occurrence is contradicted by physical evidence?
  • Does the killing of a person found in a compromising position with one's wife constitute an offence under the law of grave and sudden provocation?
  • To what extent can Islamic injunctions regarding 'Ghairat' be applied in determining the culpability of a person accused of Qatl-e-Amd?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who cannot explain their presence at the scene of the crime considered reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 952 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed and 2 otherss vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and 3 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Lahore vs Malik1997 PLC 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Lahore vs Malik1997 PLC 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Federal Public Service Commission Through Chairman vs Ishtiaq Ahmed1997 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ali Baig vs Sultan Mahmood Ali Khan,1997 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed Alias Faji vs The State1997 MLD 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecriminal trialevidentiary inconsistenciesstatutory right to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the suspicious conduct of key witnesses, despite the prosecution's argument that bail should be denied because the trial had commenced. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the case against him required further inquiry due to the complainant's shifting narrative and the unexplained disappearance and conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the commencement of a trial does not render the provisions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inoperative. If an accused is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of the case, it cannot be withheld merely because the trial has begun, as the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) is not subordinate to judicial practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commencement of a trial render the provisions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inoperative?
  • Can bail be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the case requires further inquiry?
  • Is a long-standing judicial practice sufficient to override the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faryad Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Salim vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictionalternate adequate remedydisputed questions of factdischarge of accusedcriminal procedurewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed against an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a constitutional petition seeking the quashment of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered against the appellant for offences under sections 324, 353, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question before the court was whether an F.I.R. can be quashed through a constitutional petition when it discloses the commission of offences and when the petitioner has several adequate alternate remedies available under the law. The Lahore High Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and that the availability of comprehensive alternate remedies—such as approaching investigating officers, higher police authorities, seeking discharge before a magistrate, cancellation under police rules, or applying for acquittal or discharge during trial—bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction for quashing an F.I.R. The court laid down the principle that the High Court will not ordinarily interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash an F.I.R. involving factual controversies when efficacious alternate remedies are provided within the criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R.?
  • Whether an accused person invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge an F.I.R. can be regarded as having no adequate alternate remedy?
  • What are the available alternate remedies for an accused seeking relief against a criminal investigation or F.I.R. under Pakistani law?
  • Does the existence of remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for quashing an F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad and others vs Deputy Director, Education (Colleges), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad And Other vs Deputy Director, Education (Colleges), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad and 9 others vs Amir Ahmad Ansari1997 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs The State1997 MLD 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
• Fareeda vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Faiz Batool vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mukhtar vs Sh. Abid Hussain, Judge Family Court_Civil Judge, Lahore And Another1997 CLC 52 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
• Fahad Latif Paracha vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Stores and Workshop Division, Irrigation1997 PLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer vs Commissioner, WORKMEN's Compensation And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1044 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• English Trustee Bank vs Muhammad Khan1997 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Elegant Travels Private Limited, LAHOREThrough Chief Executive Saeed1997 CLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shaheena Nusrat vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 CLC 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28
  quota systemfundamental rightsconstitutional protection periodzonal allocationpublic service appointmentprinciples of policyislamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the allocation of a public service post in the Health Department on a zonal/regional basis, arguing it violated Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the provisional exception allowing quotas and reservation of posts for classes or areas under Article 27 had expired after twenty years, and whether executive policy letters could continue the quota system. The Lahore High Court held that the twenty-year constitutional protection period for quotas under Article 27 expired on August 14, 1993, and time could not be frozen during periods of constitutional suspension. The court ruled that principles of policy cannot override fundamental rights, executive circulars cannot amend the Constitution, and regional quotas in public service are ultra vires the Constitution and repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as established by the Federal Shariat Court. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the zonal advertisement was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the twenty-year protective period for reserving posts for classes or areas under the proviso to Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, expired on August 14, 1993?
  • Can the executive branch continue a regional quota system in public appointments through policy letters or circulars after the expiration of constitutional protection?
  • Do the Principles of Policy contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, take precedence over Fundamental Rights?
  • Does the period during which the Constitution remained suspended freeze or stop the running of time for the computation of constitutional time-limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naila Javeed, Medical Officer, Women Jail, Multan vs Government1997 PLC (C.S.) 97 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Nazir Khan vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Health Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 2 Other1997 CLC 354 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah, Professor of Paediatrics (RTD.) F.J. Medical1997 PLD Lahore 464 · Lahore High Court
  commercialization of propertyNo-Objection Certificatebuilding regulationsfundamental rights to propertyeasement rightsrelaxation of rulesintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Bench judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against the Lahore Development Authority's decision to permit the commercialization of a residential property. The core legal questions involved whether the commercialization violated building regulations requiring a 'No-Objection Certificate' from neighbourhood property owners, whether the property legally abutted the specified road, whether the Director-General's power of relaxation was properly exercised, and whether commercialization infringed upon the appellants' privacy, easement rights, and fundamental property rights. The Lahore High Court held that the property in question abutted Stadium Road rather than Main Boulevard, rendering the strict 'No-Objection Certificate' requirement inapplicable, and that the Director-General possessed valid powers to relax regulations to prevent abuse. Furthermore, the Court held that a property owner's right to enjoy and derive maximum benefit from immovable property is a fundamental right under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, subject to reasonable restrictions. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that stringent regulatory conditions safeguarding privacy and parking adequately protect neighbours while upholding the owner's right to commercialize.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of obtaining a 'No-Objection Certificate' from adjoining owners under the Building Regulations applies when a property abuts a residential road rather than a specified commercial boulevard?
  • Can an admission made by a subordinate public functionary contrary to statutory provisions create an estoppel against a statutory body like the Lahore Development Authority?
  • Does the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to enjoy and convert property to a more beneficial use subject to reasonable restrictions?
  • Whether the Director-General of the Lahore Development Authority possesses the power to relax the condition of producing a 'No-Objection Certificate' for property commercialization?
  • Does potential overlooking or interference with privacy from an upper-storey window constitute an actionable infringement of an easement right or nuisance justifying the denial of commercialization?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khalid Hameed vs Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Minhas vs Mst. Aisha Mahmood And Other1997 CLC 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farina Aziz vs Syed Ali Zafar And Another1997 CLC 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Capt. Muhammad Aslam Javed vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab Health Department And 3 Other1997 MLD 498 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anjam Zubair Bhutta vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 589 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vs National Industrial Relations Commission1997 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-05Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vs National Industrial Relations Commission Through Chairman And 2 Others1997 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-05Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Bahawalpur1997 PLC 33 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Dandot Cement Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector and others1997 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-15
  Goods Exit TaxExport TaxZila Counciltax rateprovincial directionconstitutional petitionlocal government taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions challenging notifications issued by respective Zila Councils increasing the 'Goods Exit Tax' (Export Tax) on certain items beyond the rates previously fixed by the Government of Punjab. The core legal question is whether a Zila Council possesses the authority to levy export taxes at rates higher than or contrary to the directions and rates fixed by the Provincial Government under the relevant local government legislation. The Lahore High Court held that once the Provincial Government has validly exercised its statutory powers to direct a Zila Council to levy a tax at a particular rate, the Zila Council is not authorized to act contrary to such direction or impose rates higher than those prescribed by the Government. The Court established the key principle that while a Zila Council may levy a tax at a rate lower than that fixed by the Government, it cannot exceed the government-prescribed rates, and any notifications issued in violation of such binding directions are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Zila Council levy an export tax at a rate higher than the one fixed by the Provincial Government?
  • Whether the power of the Government to issue directions regarding taxation to a Zila Council overrides the council's independent taxation powers?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution competent when alternate remedies like appeal and revision are provided under the rules?
  • Does the power to levy a tax inherently include the power to fix the rate of the tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Waheed-Uz-Zaman vs Jamil and 8 others1997 P Cr. L J 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03
  quashing of FIRsecond FIRcancellation of FIRcivil disputeinheritance mutationfraud and misrepresentationabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to set aside a magistrate's order cancelling an FIR, and an interconnected writ petition challenging the registration of subsequent FIRs on the same facts. The core legal questions involved whether a magistrate's order cancelling an FIR should be set aside merely for being brief, and whether a second FIR can be registered on the same facts and circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that while a magistrate should pass a speaking order, an order concurring with a police report cannot be set aside under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on mere technical grounds unless sufficient material warrants conviction or the order is perverse, especially when the underlying dispute is civil in nature. The Court further held that a second or subsequent FIR on the same facts and circumstances is not permissible in law. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with a police report cancellation order unless it is arbitrary or perverse, and subsequent FIRs based on identical facts are illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered on the basis of the same facts and circumstances as an earlier registered FIR?
  • Whether an order of a Magistrate cancelling an FIR under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be interfered with under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on mere technical grounds?
  • Does every civil wrong or incorrect inheritance mutation automatically give rise to the commission of a criminal offence?
  • Does a Magistrate function as a criminal Court when concurring with a police report and cancelling a registered criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Rafiq vs Abdul Hameed And Another1997 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Latif vs Province of Punjab1997 CLC 262 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23
  date of birth correctionrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencelimitation periodUniversity of the Punjabdeclaratory suitconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for a declaration to correct his date of birth in his Matriculation certificate. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was barred by statutory immunity under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, whether the claim was time-barred, and whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the petitioner's age. The High Court held that the University’s refusal to correct a date of birth is subject to judicial review if the refusal lacks good faith, and that the cause of action for such a suit arises upon the final rejection of the application by the University. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence from the petitioner’s family members, which established a consistent age difference with his elder brother. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' findings, accepted the revision petition, and decreed the suit, affirming that revisional jurisdiction allows interference when findings are based on a misreading of material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court entertain a suit for the correction of a date of birth despite the finality clause in the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  • When does the limitation period begin for a suit seeking the correction of a date of birth in a university certificate?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Irshad Javed vs Tariq Mehmood Malik And Other1997 MLD 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Azam Cheema vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 CLC' 970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arif And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar1997 MLD 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mazhar Ali Gill vs The District Magistrate, Faisalabad And Other1997 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Asghar Ali and others vs Province of Punjab and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Asghar Ali And Other vs Province of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi Through Its Executive Officer And Another vs Ghulam Habib Rana And 12 Other1997 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Bushra Qasim Khan vs Dr. Abdul Rasheed and others1997 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bushra Begum vs Chairman, Lahore Development Authority And Other1997 CLC 1315 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
• Bismillah & Co. vs Secretary, Finance, Government of Pakistan and 41997 PTD 747 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04
  advance taxincome taxlease contractoctroi collectionconstitutional petitiontax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the deduction of advance income tax under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on leases obtained for the collection of taxes, octroi, and other levies from local councils in the Punjab. The core legal questions involved whether obtaining a lease for collecting local taxes amounts to a 'sale of property' under section 50(7-A) and whether advance tax can be levied on the entire lease contract value. The Court held that by virtue of the explanation added by the Finance Ordinance, 1984, the term 'sale of property' explicitly includes the awarding of any lease for the right to collect octroi duties, tolls, fees, or other levies. Furthermore, the Court held that advance tax under this provision is merely a mode of recovery in anticipation of regular assessment and is subject to subsequent adjustment, refund, or recovery. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the granting of a lease for the collection of octroi duties, tolls, or fees constitute a sale of property under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can advance income tax be collected on the entire value of a lease contract for tax collection even if the gross amount may not entirely constitute income?
  • Is the deduction of advance tax under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, subject to subsequent adjustment and refund upon final assessment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Akhtar Shahi vs Government of Punjab, and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Akhtar Shahi vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Sh. Abdul Aziz And 2 Other1997 MLD 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs S.H.O. And Other1997 MLD 1071 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →