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.

• Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Pakistan1997 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-16
  Evacuee Trust PropertySuo Motu JurisdictionLimitation PeriodPermanent Transfer DeedVested RightsWrit JurisdictionAdministrative Lethargy
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Federal Government regarding the validation of property transfers under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The core legal questions were whether the Federal Government’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 was exercised within the statutory limitation period and whether the requirement for a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) to be issued before 30-6-1968 to validate a transfer is legally sustainable when the full price was paid prior to that date. The Court held that the proceedings initiated upon a private complaint were not suo motu and were time-barred under the proviso to Section 17. Furthermore, the Court established that where a purchaser has paid the full transfer price, the government department’s failure to issue a PTD due to its own administrative lethargy cannot defeat the purchaser's vested rights. The Court affirmed that title matures upon the payment of the full price, and the issuance of a PTD is merely an executive act that cannot be used to prejudice the rights of a bona fide purchaser.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, based on a private complaint?
  • Does the failure of a government department to issue a Permanent Transfer Deed due to administrative delay defeat the rights of a purchaser who has paid the full transfer price?
  • Is a remand order by the Federal Government subject to judicial review if it directs the subordinate authority to apply an incorrect legal standard?
  Read full judgment →
• Basheer Ahmed vs The State1997 MLD 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Baby-Own vs Income Tax Officer1997 PTD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05
  Income Tax OrdinanceSelf-Assessment Schemereopening of assessmentshow-cause noticedefective noticeconstitutional petitiontax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the validity of notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 61 and 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 regarding the assessment year 1991. The petitioner, previously assessed as an individual and a member of an Association of Persons (A.O.P.), had his return accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme pursuant to Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Subsequently, the tax authorities issued notices seeking to reopen the assessment. The core legal question was whether the notice issued under Section 65 was legally valid despite failing to specify the grounds or subsection under which the assessment was being reopened. The Court held that the notice was defective and illegal ab initio because it failed to state the specific reasons for reopening the assessment. The Court emphasized that reopening an assessment is a quasi-penal action requiring the assessing officer to apply their mind cautiously and clearly inform the assessee of the specific grounds for the action. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the defective notice were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice for reopening an income tax assessment valid if it fails to specify the grounds or subsection under which it is issued?
  • Does the reopening of an income tax assessment constitute a penal action requiring the assessing officer to provide specific reasons?
  • Can proceedings initiated on the basis of a defective and illegal notice under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Azra Khalid vs S.H.O. And Other1997 MLD 2234 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-14Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 356 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentsmerit listfundamental rightsfreedom of trade and professionlocus poenitentiaeviolation of recruitment policyboard of intermediate and secondary education
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the validity of appointments made by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, to various posts ranging from BS-1 to BS-15. The core legal question involved whether appointments made in blatant disregard of recruitment policies, merit lists, and statutory procedures at the behest of external influences or unauthorized committees can be sustained in law. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made in favor of candidates who neither applied nor appeared for tests and interviews, and which bypassed the legally constituted recruitment committee, are illegal, void, and violative of fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that public appointments must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, merit, and due process, and that illegal appointment orders create no vested rights and cannot be protected under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae. Furthermore, entering a profession or public service in accordance with law is a guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made to public bodies in violation of prescribed recruitment policies and merit lists are sustainable in law?
  • Can an illegal appointment order create a permanent vested right protecting the appointee from termination?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to rescind unlawful and void orders of appointment?
  • Is the right to enter a profession or public service protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs Secretary, WAPDA And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 538 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi Through Administrator1997 CLC 1486 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ayesha Ijaz vs S. H. O.1997 MLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan and 8 others vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan And 8 Other vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Finance Division,Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Attaur Rehman vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Athar Shahzad Papoo vs The State1997 MLD 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1997 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• Asiatic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Punjab Agricultural Research1997 CLC 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain And Another vs The State1997 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs University of the Punjab Through Vicechancellor, Senate Hall, Lahore And Another1997 MLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-23
  post-arrest bailattempt to commit qatl-i-amdhurtprohibitory clausefurther inquiryintent to killbailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Asghar Ali, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the subsequent addition of Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged shooting incident involving a property dispute between brothers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the victim were not on vital parts of the body, and the assailants did not repeat fire, suggesting a lack of clear intent to kill. Consequently, the Court held that the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry, and since the offence under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that where the intent to commit murder is questionable due to the non-vital location of injuries and lack of repeated fire, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of injuries on vital parts of the body and the failure to repeat fire raise a question of intent requiring further inquiry under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an offence under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable for the purpose of bail adjudication?
  • When does a case involving Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1384 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Anwaar Ali vs Mst. Riaz Anwar And Another1997 MLD 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Tajran Charam vs The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad And 3 Other1997 CLC 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Amer Yar Khan vs Principal, Allama Iqbal Medical College And Other1997 MLD 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan And Others vs Kohat Cement Co. And Other1997 MLD 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Amanullah And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali, PTC Teacher vs Deputy District Education Officer, Mian1997 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha And Others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue And Other1997 CLC 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Sardar Khan and others1997 PLD Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04
  redemption of mortgageevacuee propertylimitation periodconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefdelegation of powerscustodianbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a dispute regarding the redemption of mortgaged land originally belonging to a local mortgagor and mortgaged in favor of an evacuee who subsequently migrated to India. The core legal questions involved whether the application for redemption was barred by time, whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had jurisdiction to entertain the redemption application, and whether the High Court should decline to set aside an illegal order in constitutional jurisdiction if doing so would revive another illegal order or cause injustice. The Lahore High Court held that the period of limitation stopped running against the evacuee mortgagee upon his migration under section 13 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the Custodian's powers were validly delegated to rehabilitation authorities under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. The Court further held that even though a second revision petition was legally incompetent, it would decline to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to set aside the impugned order because doing so would revive a manifestly illegal order and perpetuate injustice. The petition was accordingly dismissed with observations regarding compensation through alternate land.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage stop running against an evacuee mortgagee upon migration under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as a delegatee of the Custodian has jurisdiction to entertain an application for redemption of mortgaged evacuee property?
  • Will the High Court decline to set aside an illegal order in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if doing so revives another illegal order or causes injustice?
  • Does an allotment of land not treated as evacuee property before the appointed date convey valid title to subsequent purchasers?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Province of Punjab1997 PLD Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-02
  Land acquisitionUltra viresSubordinate legislationEminent domainPublic purposeDeeming clauseDirectory vs mandatoryConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, focusing on the validity of Rules 7 and 8 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. The core legal question was whether these rules, which impose a mandatory one-year time limit for issuing a notification under Section 5 of the Act, are consistent with the parent statute and intra vires. The Court held that Rules 7 and 8 are ultra vires the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court reasoned that the parent Act allows for acquisition "at any time" and does not prescribe a rigid terminal date; subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute by imposing such limitations. Furthermore, the Court determined these rules are directory rather than mandatory, and acquisition proceedings cannot be automatically terminated by a deeming clause in subordinate rules. The key principle established is that subordinate legislation must remain consistent with the parent statute and cannot impose restrictions or terminal dates not contemplated by the enabling Act, nor can it defeat the Act's purpose through deeming provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Are Rules 7 and 8 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, consistent with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Can subordinate legislation impose a terminal date for acquisition proceedings when the parent Act does not provide one?
  • Are the provisions of Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, directory or mandatory in nature?
  • Does a deeming clause in subordinate rules have the power to automatically terminate acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And 3 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad And 9 Others vs Province of Punjab And Another1997 MLD 526 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1997 MLD 1242 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And 15 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 6 Other1997 MLD 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Hasan And Another vs Manzoor Ahmad And 4 Other1997 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Akhtar And 3 Others vs University of the Punjab And Another1997 CLC 80 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-31Read full judgment →
• Alhamad Cotton vs Allah Ditta1997 MLD 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Alam Khatoon Alias Malookan And Others vs S.H.O., Qaim Pur And Other1997 MLD 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Al Sehat (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamic Mission, Shikarpur (Sindh) vs National1997 CLC 854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan And 6 Others vs Fazal Khan And Another1997 CLC 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali And 4 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-11
  grave and sudden provocationQatl-e-Amdillicit relationsZinareduction of sentenceculpable homicidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Akbar, who was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the deceased committing Zina with his daughter, and whether his conviction warranted alteration to a lesser category of culpable homicide. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant indeed acted under grave and sudden provocation upon witnessing the illicit liaison, which severely disturbed his mental composure and led him to kill both the male deceased and his own daughter. The Court laid down that while citizens cannot be permitted to take the law into their own hands, the extreme mental torture and revulsion caused in a Muslim society by the knowledge of illicit relations or Zina involving a female family member constitute grave and sudden provocation, warranting a reduction in sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than severe punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discovery of illicit relations or Zina involving a family member constitutes grave and sudden provocation to mitigate murder under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 302(c) when the accused acts under sudden and grave provocation?
  • Are the heirs of a deceased person involved in immoral activities entitled to compensation under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Naveed Akbar1997CLC 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and others vs Lal and others1997 PLD Lahore 709 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29
  specific performanceagreement to sellColonization of Government Landspossessionlis pendenspower of attorneyconsent decreeIslamabad Oustees Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The core legal question concerned the validity of a registered agreement to sell in favor of the respondents, which was contested by the appellants based on an earlier, alleged agreement and a subsequent consent decree. The Court held that the respondents' agreement was valid and enforceable. It determined that an agreement to sell land, when coupled with the delivery of possession and payment of consideration, is not rendered void by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Court further held that a consent decree obtained through an agent whose power of attorney had been cancelled is void and of no legal consequence. Additionally, the Court established that a subsequent agreement to sell accompanied by the transfer of possession takes precedence over a prior agreement that lacked such delivery of possession. Consequently, the appellate decree in favor of the respondents was upheld, confirming their entitlement to specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell land coupled with possession violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
  • Does a subsequent agreement to sell accompanied by the delivery of possession take precedence over a prior agreement without possession?
  • Is a consent decree obtained through an agent whose power of attorney was previously cancelled legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Naseer vs A.C.E., Multan And Other1997 MLD 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 4 Other1997 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hasan And Another vs Punjab University And Another1997 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Judge Family Court, Alipur And Another1997 MLD 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
• Agha Ba$Hir Ahmad vs Nippon Bobins (Pvt.) Ltd.1997 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Afshan Naureen vs Nadeem Abbas Shah1997 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abida Parveen vs Nadeem Akhtar1997 MLD 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Jhang and others1997 P Cr. L J 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23
  illegal gratificationtrap casede facto doctrinetainted moneybenefit of doubtanti-corruptioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a Patwari, who was found guilty by a Special Judge under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Parliament/Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial conducted by the Special Judge whose appointment was subsequently declared invalid, the necessity of independent corroboration and hearing of conversation by a raiding party in trap cases, and the plausibility of the defence explanation regarding the recovery of tainted money. The Lahore High Court held that while prior judicial acts of the judge were protected under the de facto doctrine, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the raiding party did not overhear the conversation or witness the passing of the bribe, and the accused successfully established a plausible defence explaining the receipt of money as fees for copies, which was supported by admissions made by the complainant during cross-examination. The appeal was accordingly accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Are the judgments and orders passed by a judge whose appointment is subsequently declared illegal protected under the de facto doctrine?
  • Whether the failure of the raiding party to overhear the conversation and witness the passing of tainted money is fatal to the prosecution case in a trap layout?
  • Can the explanation offered by an accused regarding the receipt of money be sustained when supported by admissions made by the complainant in cross-examination?
  • Does the mere recovery of tainted money suffice to establish a charge of corruption without proof of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs Muhammad Sharif and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-21
  restitution of possessionabuse of processinherent powersexecution of decreeagricultural landcivil revisionact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from proceedings under section 12(2) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the execution of a decree for possession of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a court, after finding that a warrant of possession was issued and executed in violation of mandatory statutory procedures and amounted to an abuse of process, is bound to order the immediate restitution of possession to the dispossessed party, or whether such relief can be withheld pending a reply and evidence on related applications. The Lahore High Court held that where a party is dispossessed through an illegal execution process and an act of court, the court has an inherent duty under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to undo the wrong and order immediate restitution of possession, and such relief cannot be denied as an eyewash or delayed until the adjudication of separate proceedings. The key principle laid down is that no person shall suffer prejudice by an act or mistake of the court, and courts possess inherent powers to grant restitution to rectify an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is bound to order immediate restitution of possession when a party is dispossessed through a warrant of possession issued in violation of prescribed statutory procedures?
  • Can the execution of a decree for possession of agricultural land be carried out directly by a court bailiff without intervention of the Collector?
  • Does a civil court possess inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to rectify its own mistake and restore possession to a person illegally dispossessed?
  • Whether withholding the restoration of possession pending the reply to an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is legally justified after finding an abuse of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Butt vs The State and others1997 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim alias Kaka vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Saleemi vs Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Tasleem Akhtar And 6 Other1997 CLC 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Alias Bakhu And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1997 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Others vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1997 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Qurban Ali, Additional Sessions Judge Toba Tek Singh1997 MLD 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyoum vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan1997 P Cr. L J 855 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Allah Wasaya And Other1997 CLC 311 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14
  Civil revisionDeclaration suitLimitationPardanashin ladyBurden of proofMutationGiftRevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the appellate court's decision to decree a suit for declaration, which had sought to invalidate adverse entries in mutations from 1947. The original plaintiffs, two women, claimed ownership of suit property, asserting that their brother fraudulently transferred the land to his sons (the petitioners). The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred, the respondents were estopped, and they were not Pardanashin ladies. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, holding that the suit was within time, as the cause of action arose from the 'last attack on rights' (a prior suit filed by petitioners) under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the respondents, being illiterate villagers, could be construed as Pardanashin ladies, placing a heavier burden of proof on the petitioners to establish the validity of the mutations and alleged gift. The petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence, such as the Halqa Patwari or Revenue Officer, to prove the mutations or gift, thus failing to discharge their onus.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'last attack on rights' principle extend the limitation period for a declaration suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
  • What is the standard of proof required for transactions involving Pardanashin ladies?
  • Can illiterate villagers be considered Pardanashin ladies for the purpose of legal protection, even if they perform some outdoor tasks?
  • What is the burden of proof for establishing the validity of mutations and alleged gifts, particularly when challenged by Pardanashin or illiterate individuals?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Allah Daad And Other1997 CLC 48 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan vs Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Gujranwala And1997C L C 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1997 MLD 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1997 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Asadullah And 2 Other1997 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1997 PLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  Payment of Wagescompensation for delayed wagesretirement benefitsLabour Appellate Tribunalconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a claim before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking unpaid retirement benefits along with ten times compensation. The Authority awarded the principal claim plus a lump sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental torture and litigation delays. An appeal by the employer to the Labour Court was dismissed, but a subsequent revision petition before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the Rs.5,000 compensation award. The petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Authority to award lump sum compensation for mental torture and litigation delays in cases of delayed wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Authority's power to grant compensation for delayed wages is strictly restricted by statute to a maximum of ten rupees, and it has no general jurisdiction to award lump sum damages for mental torture or litigation costs. The principle laid down is that statutory authorities created by specific enactments are strictly bound by the limitations of their governing statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Are orders passed by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 revisable under Section 38(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 possess the jurisdiction to grant lump sum compensation for mental torture and litigation delay in cases of delayed wages?
  • What is the statutory limit of compensation that the Authority can award in the case of delayed wages under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim alias Abdalli vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryinvestigation reportdischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hameed, who is accused of involvement in a murder case registered under sections 302, 334, 148, 149, and 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on arguments of further inquiry, the rule of consistency, and conflicting police investigation reports regarding his presence at the crime scene. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the commission of the crime. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from a co-accused who had been granted bail, noting that the petitioner was named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and assigned a specific role in attempting to take illegal possession of land. The Court established that an investigating officer's opinion cannot override the weight of evidence provided by witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that a Magistrate cannot discharge accused persons based solely on a police report when witnesses have implicated them.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person claim the benefit of the rule of consistency if their role is distinguishable from a co-accused who was granted bail?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion that an accused is innocent override the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate discharge an accused person solely on the basis of a police report when prosecution witnesses have implicated them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila Council,1997 CLC 540 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-25
  Cattle market auctionVoid ab initioLease cancellationLocal CouncilPublic exchequerConstitutional petitionSupervisory powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Intra-Court Appeals challenging a Single Judge’s decision to uphold the cancellation of leases for holding Cattle Markets. The appellants argued that once the lease was executed, it created a vested right, and the Chief Minister lacked authority to cancel it. The Court examined whether the auction process, which failed to adhere to the mandatory seven-day notice period required by the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, rendered the subsequent lease void. The Court held that the auction was void ab initio due to procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the lease agreement, being a superstructure built upon a void act, was also void and lacked legal efficacy. The Court affirmed that the Provincial Government holds supervisory authority over Local Councils and is empowered to intervene to protect the public exchequer from financial loss. Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional petitions are maintainable in such instances, as the fundamental illegality of the auction process justified judicial intervention, notwithstanding the availability of other remedies. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the necessity of a re-auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an auction held in violation of the mandatory notice period prescribed by the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, render the resulting lease void ab initio?
  • Can a lease agreement based on an auction that was void ab initio be cancelled by the Provincial Government?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the cancellation of a lease when the underlying auction process was fundamentally illegal?
  • Does the Provincial Government possess the authority to intervene in the affairs of a Local Council to prevent financial loss to the public exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor And 5 Others vs Tehsil Chishtian, District1997 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Rent Controller And Another1997 CLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Public in General And Other1997 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01
  habeas corpusvalidity of marriageoption of pubertycustody of wifeMuslim Personal Lawconsent of Waliabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the custody of Mst. Allah Moafi, involving a writ petition filed by her husband, Abdul Ghaffar, and a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by her father, Sher Muhammad, who alleged abduction and that the girl was a minor. The core legal question was whether a marriage contracted by a girl who has attained puberty, without the consent of a Wali, is valid, and whether she is entitled to choose her own custody. The Court held that under Islamic law, an adult female who has attained puberty possesses the right to contract a valid marriage of her own free will without the consent of a Wali. Given the evidence of the girl's pregnancy and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed the validity of the Nikah. Consequently, the Court allowed the husband's petition, dismissed the father's petition, and permitted the girl to join her husband, ruling that the Magistrate’s order confining her to Darul Aman was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adult Muslim female contract a valid marriage without the consent of a Wali?
  • Does the attainment of puberty by a female validate her marriage under Islamic law regardless of the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to send an adult female to Darul Aman against her will when she claims to be validly married?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar And Other vs Deputy Inspector-General, Multan And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs S.H.O., P.S. Qutabpur, Multan And 7 Other1997 MLD 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs S. P. (C.I.A.), Sargodha and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-03
  re-investigationpolice harassmentcriminal investigationcross-caseconstitutional petitionabuse of police poweradministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Abdul Aziz, seeking relief against alleged harassment by the Superintendent of Police (C.I.A.), Sargodha, who was reportedly pressuring the petitioner to withdraw a cross-case filed by his son. The core legal question concerned the scope and limitations of the police's power to conduct re-investigation in criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that while the law permits further investigation, such power is not unfettered and must not be exercised to cause harassment or to favor one party over another for ulterior motives. The Court emphasized that re-investigation should only occur when necessary to discover the truth and advance justice, rather than as a tool for political or external pressure. The holding established that police officers must record specific reasons justifying any re-investigation and must avoid mechanical exercise of this power. The Court directed the respondent to adhere to these guidelines, noting that the ultimate determination of facts should be left to the Courts of law rather than repeated police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the police have unfettered power to conduct re-investigation in criminal cases?
  • What are the requirements for a police officer to justify the re-opening of an investigation?
  • Should re-investigation be used to resolve disputes between parties or should the matter be left to the Courts of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Munir Ahmad And Another1997 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abbad Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• A.S. Qureshi and 24 others vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd., Islamabad through Managing Director and 3 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• A.S. Qureshi And 24 Other vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd., Islamabad Through Managing Director And 3 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• A.M. Kamal Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Lahore Improvement Trust1997 CLC 121 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08
  evacuee propertydevelopment schemedamaged areaopen auctionacquisition of landlocus standitown improvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of three regular second appeals arising out of a single judgment and decree concerning property situated inside Shahalmi Gate, Lahore, which was included in a development scheme framed by the Lahore Improvement Trust under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1952. The core legal questions involved the legality of acquiring evacuee property by provincial authorities for a local trust development scheme, the necessity of Central Government approval, and the validity of disposing of the acquired property via open auction. The Lahore High Court held that the scheme and subsequent acquisition proceedings were lawful, duly approved by the Central Government, and that the Lahore Improvement Trust was legally competent to acquire and dispose of the property through open auction. The Court laid down that evacuee property falling within a duly sanctioned provincial development scheme ceases to form part of the compensation pool once approved by the competent authority, and local authorities are empowered to deal with such properties pursuant to statutory development frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evacuee property can be legally acquired under provincial legislation for a town improvement development scheme?
  • Does a local authority have the competence to dispose of acquired property through open auction prior to the final sanction of a development scheme?
  • Whether a plaintiff who seeks to purchase property in question is estopped from challenging the title and authority of the acquiring trust?
  • Does the acquisition of evacuee property with the requisite central approval remove it from the rehabilitation compensation pool?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Mobeen Enterprises Limited, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan,1997 P.C.T.L.R. 126 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Mehran Flese vs Federation of Pakistan1997 P.C.T.L.R. 41 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Alias Zafri And Another vs The State1996 MLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →