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.

• Zulfiqar Ali Alias Bhutto vs The State1996 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs Judge Family Court1996 MLD 1997 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Khatoon vs Administrator Union Council Uch Gillani, Tehsil1996 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Bibi vs Muhammad Jameel1996 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1996 CLC 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Zohra And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ziledar Khan and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner/Deputy1996 CLC 236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Zaheerurdin and others vs Mst. Khurshida Begum1996 CLC 580 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24
  civil revisionlocal commissionerremand orderdemarcation reportencroachmentcross-examinationprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision challenges an appellate order remanding a suit for the second time to the trial court. The dispute concerns a claim of encroachment by the respondents on the petitioners' land, which was subject to a demarcation report by a Local Commissioner. The appellate court remanded the case, citing that the Local Commissioner should have been examined as a court witness rather than a party witness, that the respondents were denied an opportunity to cross-examine him, and that the report should have been decided as a preliminary issue. The High Court held that the procedure for appointing and examining a Local Commissioner is governed by the special provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which allows parties to examine the Commissioner. Since the respondents themselves summoned the Commissioner as their witness, they had the right to cross-examine him, and the court was not required to treat him as a court witness under Order XVI, Rule 14. The Court further held that remanding a case when sufficient material exists on record is improper and prolongs litigation unnecessarily.

  Questions settled

  • Does the special procedure for examining a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override general provisions regarding court witnesses?
  • Is a party who summons a Local Commissioner as their own witness entitled to cross-examine them?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a second time when sufficient evidence is already available on the record to decide the matter on its merits?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to decide the validity of a Local Commissioner's report as a separate preliminary issue before proceeding to the final judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State1996 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad And Other vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Etc.(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases l2) · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs D. C. (G) and others1996 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Others vs A. D. C. (G) And Other1996 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Other vs D.I.G. Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and another vs The State and another1996 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmed Ansari vs Auqaf Department through Chief Administrator, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1996 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17
  rejection of plainttemporary injunctionscope of appealcivil procedurespecific performanceAuqaf Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, which not only set aside a temporary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff but also rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an agreement with the Auqaf Department regarding a lease and subsequent construction. The core legal questions concerned the permissible scope of inquiry when considering the rejection of a plaint and whether an appellate court hearing an appeal solely against an interlocutory order on a temporary injunction can legally dismiss the underlying suit. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court must restrict its review strictly to the averments within the four corners of the plaint when evaluating a rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, without traversing into defence material or disputed documents. Furthermore, the Court held that an appellate forum reviewing a temporary injunction lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the main suit itself. The impugned judgment was set aside and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can consider the defence version and materials beyond the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an appellate court hearing an appeal against an interlocutory order on a temporary injunction have the jurisdiction to reject the plaint and dismiss the main suit?
  • Are the averments in the plaint to be taken as true for the purpose of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali vs Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 801 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12
  civil servantappointment cancellationmerit policyright accrueddisciplinary ruleswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment as a PTC Teacher, which was revoked on the ground that it violated the government's merit policy. The core legal question was whether a duly appointed civil servant, who joined duty without any fraud or misconduct on his part, could have his appointment abruptly cancelled without recourse to formal disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that once the petitioner joined his duty, a right accrued to him as a civil servant, and he could not be removed or stripped of his position except in accordance with the applicable disciplinary rules. The Court laid down the principle that an appointment order, even if issued in violation of merit criteria by the selection authorities, cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn to the detriment of a bona fide appointee who is guilty of no fraud or misconduct, without following the prescribed legal procedure for removal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment order of a civil servant be cancelled arbitrarily on the ground of non-compliance with merit criteria by the selection committee?
  • Does a right accrue to a civil servant upon joining duty that prevents summary removal without disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether a civil servant appointed against an existing vacancy can be removed without resorting to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2069 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Yaran Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
• Yara vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-11Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs Tahir Mehmood and 6 others1996 P Cr. L J 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Workers' Union Regd., C.Ba. United Bank Limited, Vehari Zone, Vehari vs Registrar, Trade Union, Multan Region, Multan and others1996 PLC 137 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Wong Loot Keong and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Wong Loot Keong And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Wjaid Majid vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Wasim Dar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Waryam and others vs Waryam through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 873 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Waris Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali Alias Gull And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 76 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1996 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi And Other1996 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Walayat Sarwar vs Civil Judge and others1996 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Wajid Majeed vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Kamaletc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 136) · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Kamal and others1996 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Wah Cement Works vs Abdul Khalique and another1996 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• W.Z. Studios Ltd., Laii or f through Managing Director vs The Deputy1996 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20
  post-arrest bailminor offenderqatl-i-amdqisas and diyatta'zirfurther inquiryprohibitory clauselalkara
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Usman Ali, a sixteen-year-old petitioner, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The core legal question is whether a minor accused of qatl-i-amd, who is not liable to capital punishment or qisas but potentially liable to ta'zir upon proof of sufficient maturity, is entitled to bail on the ground that the question of maturity constitutes a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner is a minor and the question of whether he attained sufficient maturity to realize the consequences of his act requires recording of evidence at trial, his case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that minority prima facie makes it a case of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail. The petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor accused of qatl-i-amd is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground that the question of his sufficient maturity for ta'zir punishment is a matter of further inquiry?
  • Does the case of a minor accused of an offense punishable with death fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a person under the age of 18 years can be awarded capital punishment or qisas under section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the attribution of a mere lalkara without any overt act or caused injury make out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Taj Company Limited and 2 others1996 CLC 890 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 21 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Uch Sharif through Chairman vs Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Bahawalpur and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
• TM Din alias Bholi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Ghaus1996 P Cr. L J 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad1996 PLD Lahore 624 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Allah Bukhsh and others1996 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Allah Bukhsh And Other1996 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• The Cooperative Model Town Society (1962) Limited, Model Town, Lahore through Secretary and another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 113 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax Zone, B,Lahore vs Muhammad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• The Co-Operative Model Town Society vs Punjab Labour Appellate(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 151) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tasawar Hussain Shah vs Additional Commissioner and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 935 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saeed vs Director, Anticorruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore1996 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Niazi vs Nadeem Afzal and another1996 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27
  amendment of pleadingswritten statementrevisional jurisdictioninconsistent pleasadverse possessionfraud and misrepresentationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to amend and substitute his written statement in a suit for possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of mesne profits. The core legal question revolves around whether a defendant can be permitted to amend a written statement at a belated stage of the trial to introduce contradictory pleas, set up a new case, and allege fraud. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while courts are generally liberal in granting amendments necessary for determining real controversies, an amendment application must be bona fide and cannot be allowed if it completely alters the nature of the defence, sets up an inconsistent case, or introduces a plea of fraud for the first time after the conclusion of evidence. The court laid down that amendments introducing contradictory pleas or substituting the original defence mala fide at a late stage must be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant be permitted to amend a written statement to completely substitute the original defence and set up a new case?
  • Whether an application for amendment of pleadings can be allowed if it is not bona fide and introduces contradictory pleas at a belated stage of the trial?
  • Does Section 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit a party to file an amended written statement merely on the ground that the earlier one was in English?
  • Is an amendment raising a plea of fraud generally permissible when never pleaded before?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Latif Butt and anothers vs The State and 4 others1996 MLD 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Latif Butt And Another vs The State And 4 Other1996 MLD 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed, Sub-Inspector, FIA (I & as), Ferozepur Road, Lahore vs Director General, FIA, Headquarters FIA, G-9_4, Islamabad, And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 113) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain Shah vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal And Another1996 MLD 672 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Khanewal, District1996 P Cr. L J 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Muhammad Aslam Somra, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and others1996 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-03Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs D.I.G., Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Tai Muhammad vs The District Collector, Khanewal and others1996 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Tahir Majeed vs Administrator, Town Committee, Peer Mahal, District1996 PLC (C.S.) 798 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-02Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 73 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Syeda Shamim Akhtar vs The Government of Pakistan and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-22
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderalternative statutory remedywrit petitionsubjective satisfactionmala fidesdelegation of powersgrounds of detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by the wife of a detenu challenging multiple preventive detention orders issued against her husband under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions addressed by the Lahore High Court are whether the detention orders were passed without lawful authority by delegates, whether the petition was premature due to failure to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy of filing a representation, and whether the detention was tainted by mala fides and lack of material. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the alternative statutory remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance and Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Furthermore, the court held that the detaining authorities possessed valid delegated powers, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on sufficient and serious material regarding terrorist links, and vague allegations of mala fides without particularity cannot invalidate official acts having a presumption of regularity. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions against preventive detention are premature and not maintainable if the aggrieved person fails to avail the efficacious statutory remedy of making a representation to the government.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition against an order of preventive detention maintainable without first availing the statutory remedy of filing a representation before the government?
  • Whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority based on confidential material regarding terrorist association is justiciable in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can an initial irregularity in a detention order be cured by a subsequent valid order passed by a competent authority?
  • Does the power of the Provincial Government under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 lawfully extend to the Chief Commissioner and District Magistrate in the Islamabad Capital Territory through delegated legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed) Ikhlaq Hussain Shah, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Waheed Ahmad vs Niaz Muhammad1996 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Tasneem Nawaz Gardezi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 582 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Ahmad Shah vs Mian Azizuddin and others1996 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Ahmad Shah vs Mian Azizuddin And Other1996 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Nadeem Abbas Alias Pappoo Shah vs The State1996 MLD 1444 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Masihul Islam vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Rajanpur and others1996 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11
  compulsory acquisitionmarket value assessmentland compensationpotential land usereference courtfirst appealstatutory benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal challenged the award of the Reference Court, which upheld the Land Acquisition Collector's valuation of 81 Kanals 4 Marlas of land acquired for a government college. The core legal question concerned the correct determination of market value for compulsory acquisition, specifically whether the acquired land should be classified as barren agricultural or urban residential property with commercial potential. The Court held that the Reference Court erred in ignoring the land's urban potential and infrastructure connectivity. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that market value must reflect the price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, accounting for potential use and inflationary trends. It rejected the Collector's low valuation based on biased evidence. Instead, the Court calculated compensation by averaging relevant mutation sales, applying a 20% deduction for development, and awarding 15% compulsory acquisition charges plus statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The principle laid down is that while previous sales are relevant, they are not the sole measure; courts must consider the land's potential, oral testimony, and economic factors to ensure fair compensation.

  Questions settled

  • What criteria should be used to determine the market value of land in compulsory acquisition cases?
  • Is oral testimony regarding land value admissible in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a court apply a percentage deduction for development when calculating compensation for large tracts of acquired land?
  • Should inflationary trends and future potential use be considered when assessing compensation for acquired property?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Film Hussain vs The State and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Umatullah Begum vs Munawwar Akhtar1996 PLD Lahore 582 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-08
  restitutionCode of Civil ProcedureLimitation Actexecution of decreeappellate decreespecific performancerestitution application
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an appellate order dismissing an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether a restitution application constitutes an execution proceeding governed by the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the respondent was liable for a payment shortfall following an appellate decree. The Court held that an application for restitution is a step in the execution of a decree, rather than a miscellaneous application, and is thus governed by the limitation period applicable to execution proceedings, specifically Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908. Regarding the merits, the Court determined that the respondent was liable to pay the shortfall of Rs. 15,624, which arose from the withdrawal of costs subsequently disallowed by the appellate court. However, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the suit stood automatically dismissed due to this non-payment. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of restitution mandates that courts must ensure their acts do not injure suitors, requiring the restoration of parties to their original position upon the variation or reversal of a decree.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 considered an application for the execution of a decree?
  • Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court order restitution to restore a party to the position they would have occupied had a decree not been varied or reversed?
  • Does the failure to pay a shortfall in a decretal amount, resulting from a court's error, automatically lead to the dismissal of the underlying suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Surraya Begum vs The State and another1996 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30
  transfer of caselocus standiparty interestedcriminal procedurejudicial biasdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the transfer of a criminal case pending before an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, a sister of the deceased, alleged that the presiding judge pressured her to compromise with the accused. Upon examination, the Court noted that the petitioner was neither the complainant nor a prosecution witness in the case. The core legal question addressed was whether a person who is not a party to the proceedings has the standing (locus standi) to seek the transfer of a criminal case. The Court held that the expression 'party interested' under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is limited to the State, the accused, the complainant, or the witnesses. It ruled that this category cannot be expanded to include relatives of the parties, as doing so would invite frivolous applications and cause unnecessary trial delays. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application in limine, finding that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the request.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as a 'party interested' entitled to file an application for the transfer of a case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a relative of a deceased person who is neither a complainant nor a witness seek the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to dismiss a transfer application in limine when the applicant lacks locus standi?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad and others vs Sajawal Khan and others1996 CLC 861 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and others vs Mst. Mehro and others1996 CLC 483 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09
  customary lawinheritancelimited estatesecond appealmutation of giftMuslim Personal Lawpedigree
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a long-standing inheritance dispute concerning agricultural land originally owned by Fazal in District Gujrat, involving a chain of mutations governed historically by Customary Law and subsequently challenged under Muslim Personal Law. The core legal questions relate to whether the plaintiffs established their pedigree as legal heirs of the original owner through his alleged daughter, the nature of the estate held by female predecessors under custom, and whether gift alienations made under custom are challengeable after the enactment of Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove the pedigree of the plaintiffs were unassailable in second appeal, that the property was self-acquired and inherited by female holders as full owners under the applicable custom, and that customary restrictions on alienations are no longer enforceable following legislative and judicial developments. The court laid down that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be disturbed in second appeal without a showing of material misreading, and that customary restraints on alienations by female estate holders ceased to be actionable following the Islamisation of laws and statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a regular second appeal in the absence of material misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Do daughters inherit self-acquired property to the exclusion of collaterals under the Customary Law of Gujrat District?
  • Whether alienations made by female limited estate holders under custom remain challengeable after the insertion of Section 2-A into the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983?
  • What constitutes ancestral property for the purpose of applying customary restrictions on inheritance and alienation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Suleman and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Suleman And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. vs Abdul Sattar and 2 others1996 PLC 162 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05
  daily wagertemporary projectpermanent workmanlimitation periodgrievance petitionindustrial relationswrong forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves multiple connected writ petitions arising from a labor dispute concerning the termination of a High Pressure Pipe Welder engaged for a temporary project by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. The core legal questions involved the employment status of a daily wager on a temporary project, the applicability of labor laws, and the computation of limitation periods when proceedings were mistakenly initiated before an incompetent forum. The Lahore High Court held that a worker employed on a daily wage basis for a temporary project of finite duration does not attain the status of a permanent workman regardless of the length of service, and thus cannot maintain a grievance petition under labor laws. The Court further held that under Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, only Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies, and time spent pursuing a remedy before a forum lacking jurisdiction without sufficient cause does not extend the limitation period. Consequently, the employer's writ petitions were accepted, setting aside the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order, and the employees' petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the length of employment convert a daily wager engaged for a temporary project into a permanent workman?
  • Which provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance in light of Section 65-B?
  • Can time spent pursuing proceedings before a forum lacking jurisdiction be excluded under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without showing sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Sughran Begum vs Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore and others1996 CLC 472 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27
  writ petitionwithholding of salaryforced labourlocal government employeePrinciples of Policyremunerationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a C.T. Teacher appointed by the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore in 1992, filed a writ petition seeking payment of salary for services rendered since her appointment. Although the respondents admitted her appointment and performance of duties, they withheld her salary citing a lack of formal government sanction for the appointment. The Court held that the petitioner, having been appointed against a substantive vacancy and having performed her duties continuously, was entitled to full emoluments. The Court emphasized that there is no legal concept of service without remuneration and that withholding salary for work performed constitutes forced labour, which is prohibited under the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents' actions violated the Principles of Policy regarding equitable treatment of employees and the state's duty to eliminate exploitation. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the respondents were directed to release all outstanding salaries and admissible allowances to the petitioner from the date of her joining.

  Questions settled

  • Is a local council servant entitled to salary for services rendered even if the appointment lacked formal government sanction?
  • Does the withholding of salary for work performed constitute forced labour under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are local authorities bound by the Principles of Policy regarding the equitable treatment of employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Suba vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1909 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Sarfraz Malik and 31996 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Sarfraz Malik And 31996 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Lahore Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-I1996 P.C.T.L.R. 709 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Star Flour Mills vs Province of Punjab and others1996 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-04
  Inter-provincial tradeFreedom of tradeConstitutional petitionUltra viresExisting lawFoodstuffs controlExecutive authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, various flour mills, challenged a June 12, 1996, notification issued by the Punjab Government under Section 3 of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, which prohibited the transfer of wheat and wheat products from Punjab to other provinces. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government possessed the authority to restrict inter-provincial trade and whether the notification violated Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the notification was ultra vires and illegal. It determined that the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, only empowered the government to control intra-provincial movement, not inter-provincial trade. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 151, the Provincial Government lacks the executive authority to restrict the movement of goods between provinces, as such restrictions are reserved for the Parliament or require specific constitutional conditions—such as alleviating serious shortages—which were not established here. The Court affirmed that 'existing laws' under Article 268 remain subject to constitutional scrutiny, and executive orders cannot override constitutional guarantees regarding the freedom of trade and commerce.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, authorize the Provincial Government to restrict the inter-provincial movement of wheat and wheat products?
  • Can a Provincial Government issue an executive order restricting inter-provincial trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are 'existing laws' under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 immune from constitutional scrutiny?
  • Does the Provincial Government have the authority to impose restrictions on the export of goods from the province to other provinces?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohrab Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ali Mirza vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 988 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Society of the Capuchin Fathers vs Government of Punjab and anothers1996 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Society of the Capuchin Fathers vs Government of Punjab And Another1996 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Slier Ahmad, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Member, Federal Land Commission and others1996 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08
  Land Reforms Regulation 1972suo motu powersaudi alteram partemgift to legal heirsconstitutional petitionrevisional jurisdictionIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission, which declared a gift of land made by the petitioner to his legal heir void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions concern whether the Commission could exercise suo motu revisional powers to set aside such a gift and whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the donee an opportunity of being heard. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it violated the principle of audi alteram partem by condemning the donee unheard. Additionally, the Court observed that the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, had been declared contrary to Islamic Injunctions by the Supreme Court, rendering the impugned order legally ineffective. The key principle laid down is that alienations made by way of gifts to legal heirs, as enumerated in the proviso to the Land Reforms Regulation, are immune from scrutiny by Land Reforms authorities, and the Commission's revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors rather than re-evaluating factual merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to set aside a gift made to a legal heir under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Is an order passed by the Federal Land Commission without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard legally sustainable?
  • Are the revisional powers of the Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, limited to correcting jurisdictional errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Shujat Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-05
  post-arrest bailfresh groundssuccessive bail applicationprinciple of consistencyextra-judicial confessionbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under sections 302, 460, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a subsequent bail petition can be entertained when the previous bail application was dismissed on merits, and whether grounds available but not raised during the initial application constitute 'fresh grounds' for a second attempt. The Court held that while there is no absolute bar to repeating a bail petition, it is only permissible if based on genuine fresh grounds. The Court determined that 'fresh grounds' are defined as those that did not exist at the time of the first application. If a ground was available but not pressed during the earlier hearing, it cannot be considered a fresh ground for a subsequent petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the arguments regarding the merits and the principle of consistency were available during the earlier proceedings and thus did not constitute valid grounds for reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second bail petition be entertained if the previous one was dismissed on merits?
  • What constitutes 'fresh grounds' for the purpose of filing a subsequent bail application?
  • Does the failure to raise an available argument during an initial bail hearing constitute a waiver of that ground for future applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Shitab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs Home Department and others1996 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and anothers vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →