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.

• Rana Anwar Muhammad vs Lahore Development Authority through the Director-General, LDA, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Anwar Muhammad vs Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, L.D.A., Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Awam-UN-NasK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 528 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited and others vs Habib Bank Limited and others1996 PLD Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager vs Central Board1996 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager vs Central Board1996 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Raja Fidaurrehman and 4 others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman1996 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Raja Fida Ur Rehman And 4 Others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad Through Chairman1996 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Raja Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Ghaffar and 2 others1996 CLC 503 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Rahimyarkhan College of Education vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1996 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06
  constitutional petitionaffiliation of collegesprovisional affiliationeducational institutionsfundamental rightsrefusal of affiliationstatutory standards
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of six connected constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by educational institutions challenging orders passed by the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, refusing to extend their provisional affiliation. The petitioners argued that seeking education and teaching is a fundamental right, that there is no statutory concept of provisional affiliation, and that affiliation once granted cannot be withdrawn. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, the power to pass a final order includes the power to pass interim or provisional orders. It further held that under Sections 25(2)(n) and 34 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975, the University is legally mandated to enforce prescribed statutory standards before granting affiliation. The Court established that although citizens have a right to establish an educational institution, such right does not confer an automatic right to affiliation or recognition without fulfilling the requisite statutory standards.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory power to grant final affiliation include the authority to grant provisional or interim affiliation under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act?
  • Does the fundamental right to establish an educational institution carry an inherent right to obtain affiliation or recognition from a university?
  • Can a university lawfully refuse to extend provisional affiliation to a college that fails to meet statutory conditions prescribed under Section 34 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975?
  • Does an order refusing university affiliation require interference under Article 199 of the Constitution when passed by a competent authority through a speaking order based on inspection reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad vs Judge Family Court, Khanewal and another1996 CLC 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05
  constitutional petitionjactitation of marriagedissolution of marriageterritorial jurisdictionordinarily residesoption of pubertyFamily Court
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court, Khanewal, which decreed the respondent-plaintiff's suit for jactitation and dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions involved whether the Family Court at Khanewal lacked territorial jurisdiction under the relevant rules and whether the plaintiff validly exercised her right of option of puberty to repudiate the marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the Family Court possessed proper territorial jurisdiction, interpreting the expression 'ordinarily resides' under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, to mean a place where a female chooses to stay of her own accord for her convenience, without requiring long duration or permanent residency. Furthermore, the court held that the un-rebutted statements of the plaintiff and her father sufficiently proved the repudiation of the marriage upon attaining puberty, especially since the marriage was unconsummated. The petition was consequently dismissed in limine, establishing principles regarding territorial jurisdiction for suits filed by females in family courts and the exercise of the option of puberty.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal meaning of the expression 'ordinarily resides' under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 in suits filed by a female?
  • Does the territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court require long-term residency or permanent property ownership by a female plaintiff?
  • Can a marriage be validly repudiated through the exercise of the option of puberty when the marriage has not been consummated and the testimony remains unrebutted?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bibi vs Muhammad Malik And OtherK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 489 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs S.H.O, And 18 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 414 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Shahabuddin vs Muhammad Qasim1996 CLC 480 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08
  pre-emptionurban arearejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11date of salePunjab Pre-emption Act 1991right of pre-emptioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner to pre-empt a sale of immovable property situated within the limits of Town Committee, Dajal. The sale occurred on 4-11-1993, while the pre-emption suit was instituted on 16-2-1994. The respondent-vendee filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint, contending that on the date of sale, the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 did not extend pre-emption rights to urban immovable property. The trial court rejected the plaint, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a pre-emptor must possess a valid, superior right of pre-emption on three crucial dates: the date of sale, the date of the suit's institution, and the date of the final decree. Because the sale occurred on 4-11-1993 before urban properties became subject to pre-emption on 31-12-1993, no right of pre-emption existed on the date of sale, rendering the suit non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Must a pre-emptor possess a superior right of pre-emption on the date of sale, the date of institution of the suit, and the date of the decree?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained for an urban property sold before the law extended pre-emption rights to urban areas?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if no right of pre-emption existed on the date the sale took place?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Fazal Ahmad (Deceased) Rep By Lrs. Etc vs Riaz-Ur-Rahim EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Qazi Ashiq Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Qasim and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
• Qasim And Another vs The State1996 MLD 108 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Qari Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Yunus And Other1996 MLD 604 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Qamar Shahid Alias Shahid Mayo vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Mehmood vs The State1996 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-30
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayright to fair trialadjournments by counselstatutory periodcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over two years without the conclusion of his trial, invoking the statutory right under clause (b) of the 3rd proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the period of delay occasioned by adjournments sought by the accused's counsel should be deducted from the mandatory two-year statutory period, thereby depriving the accused of the statutory right to bail. The Lahore High Court held that an accused person cannot be penalized or deprived of a statutory right due to adjournments genuinely requested or obtained by their counsel, as the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice is a fundamental constitutional right. The Court ruled that routine adjournments sought by counsel do not constitute an act or omission of the accused under the proviso to defeat the statutory period, and consequently granted bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of delay occasioned by adjournments sought by an accused person's counsel can be deducted from the statutory period of two years under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused person can be penalized or denied the benefit of the statutory proviso to bail on account of an act or omission of a legal practitioner acting on their behalf?
  • Does the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the computation of statutory delay for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Qadus Ahmad vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth1996 PTD 634 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Punjab Bar Council vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and 5 others1996 CLC 661 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation through Managing Director vs Shukar Ullah and others1996 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Bibi vs Amanat Ali and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Rana & Sons1996 CLC 69 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27
  territorial jurisdictionarbitration agreementcause of actionappointment of arbitratorcivil procedurereturn of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a firm and the Province of Punjab regarding a construction contract for a hospital in Khanewal. The respondent-firm filed an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in a Lahore Civil Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator after the appellants failed to do so. The appellants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore court, arguing the contract was executed and the work performed in Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the failure to appoint an arbitrator, which occurred at the appellant's office, constituted a part of the cause of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Lahore court. The Court held that because the service of notice and the subsequent failure to appoint an arbitrator are statutory prerequisites for filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, this failure constitutes a material fact and part of the cause of action. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Lahore court possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a party to appoint an arbitrator after receiving notice constitute a part of the cause of action for an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a Civil Court exercise jurisdiction over an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, based on the location where the failure to appoint an arbitrator occurred?
  • Are the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding residence and business applicable to the Government in the context of determining territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And 2 Others vs Mirza Muhammad Latif1996 MLD 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Hayat Muhammad Awan and others vs Dr. Muhammad Ishaq1996 MLD 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Hayat Muhammad Awan And Others vs Dr. Muhammad Ishaq1996 MLD 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Prof Dr. Tariq Iqbal Bhutta vs Government of the Punjab and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 552 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Akhtar vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab and others1996 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Akhtar vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab And Other1996 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh vs Magistrate 1ST Class and others1996 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Phull Pir Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Pattoki Ice Factory vs Revenue Officer and others1996 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15
  electricity disconnectionstatutory noticemandatory complianceWAPDAdue processright to appealelectricity arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the disconnection of an electricity supply by WAPDA. The appellant, a partnership firm, contested a demand for arrears relating to a factory unit allegedly transferred to other partners upon dissolution. The core legal question was whether the licensee could disconnect the electricity supply without serving the statutory notice mandated by Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Court held that the disconnection was illegal and without lawful authority. It ruled that the service of a written notice of at least seven days is a mandatory condition precedent to the exercise of the power of disconnection under Section 24. The Court emphasized that such notice provisions must be strictly complied with, as they also facilitate the consumer's statutory right to appeal against the notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the disconnection, finding that the respondents failed to adhere to the imperative procedural requirements of the Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by the Electricity Act (Punjab) Amendment Ordinance, 1971.

  Questions settled

  • Is the service of a notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, a mandatory condition precedent to the disconnection of electricity supply?
  • Can a licensee disconnect electricity supply based on an endorsement on a bill without issuing a separate statutory notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910?
  • Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, deprive a consumer of their statutory right to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways and others vs Mst. Majeedan and others1996 CLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Department Corp. vs Presiding Officer PB. Laour(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services 166) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell vs District Judge and others1996 MLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell vs District Judge And Other1996 MLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Painda Khan vs Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 35 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• P vs Principle K.E.M.C. Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1996 Civil Case 464 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Noora vs The State1996 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib and another1996 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs Ali Muhammad and 3 others1996 MLD 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs Ali Muhammad And 3 Other1996 MLD 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nazoo vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 269 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Naziran Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Naziran Bibi vs S.H.O. and others1996 PLD Lahore 709 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1996 MLD 635 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs District Judge1996 MLD 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 2 others vs Faqir Muhammad1996 CLC 658 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Nazim Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 590 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-17Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State And Another1996 MLD 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-17Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1996 PLD Lahore 277 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27
  Criminal RevisionZimnisSection 161 Cr.P.C.Supply of copiesPolice investigationRight of accusedCase diary
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala, which directed the prosecution to supply the accused persons with copies of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by a police officer (D.S.P.) within the case diary (Zimnis). The core legal question was whether statements of witnesses recorded by police officers in the body of case diaries constitute statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the accused to receive copies thereof. The Lahore High Court held that statements recorded by police officers during investigation, whether in detail, gist, or boiled form within the case diary, are to be treated as statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the accused has a statutory right to obtain copies of these statements, subject to the exceptions in Section 162. The Court affirmed that providing these copies does not prejudice the prosecution, as witnesses retain the opportunity to explain or clarify their statements during trial. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements of witnesses recorded by police officers in the body of case diaries (Zimnis) considered statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an accused person have a legal right to demand copies of witness statements recorded in the case diary?
  • Does the supply of witness statements recorded in the case diary to the accused prejudice the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad And Another vs The State And Another1996 MLD 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 385 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nawaz alias Nazim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydesperate criminalmurderprohibitory clausebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Nawaz alias Nazim seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay, having been detained for over three years and five months in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shaidani, Tehsil Liaqatpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite the delay in conclusion of the trial, and whether his conduct brought him within the prohibitory exception of being a desperate or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, by his overt acts of firing a fatal shot at the deceased and injuring another while attempting to take forcible possession of land during pending civil proceedings, exhibited conduct making him a desperate person. The court laid down the principle that an accused's active role in committing violent acts to thwart court processes and establish forcible possession can categorize him as a desperate or dangerous criminal, disentitling him from statutory bail under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused automatically entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if he falls within the category of a desperate or dangerous criminal?
  • Can the conduct of an accused attempting forcible possession of land during pending civil proceedings bring him within the ambit of the fourth proviso to section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What factors may a court consider to determine whether an accused is a desperate or dangerous criminal for the purpose of bail refusal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Muhammad Shahabuddin vs The Chairman, Federal Land1996 CLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionfederal land commissionmartial law regulation 115natural justicesuo motu jurisdictionland reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated Constitution petitions challenging an order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, which set aside prior orders validating land transfers made by the declarant under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue a writ against a federal authority located in Islamabad whose order affected land in other districts, the necessity of hearing transferees before adversely affecting their rights, and the legal effect of the obliteration of relevant provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115 by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court held that the Federal Land Commission is a federal institution operating across Pakistan and thus amenable to its jurisdiction, that orders passed without hearing necessary parties (transferees) and without finding jurisdictional defects in the subordinate authority's order are without lawful authority, and that since the relevant provisions of the regulation were declared repugnant to Islam and erased from the statute book, remanding the matter would be futile. The court laid down principles regarding writ jurisdiction under Article 199 and the protection of legal heirs' alienations under land reform laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to issue a writ against the Federal Land Commission whose principal office is located in Islamabad when the land in dispute is situated in other districts?
  • Does an order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission in the absence of necessary parties such as donees and transferees violate the principles of natural justice and render the order without jurisdiction?
  • Whether the Federal Land Commission can interfere with an order of the Land Commissioner without establishing any jurisdictional or legal infirmity in it?
  • What is the legal consequence of the declaration by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court erasing paragraphs of Martial Law Regulation 115 from the statute book on pending remand proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Aziz and another vs Rauf Ali Syed1996 CLC 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-11
  RefereeArbitratorQanun-e-ShahadatArbitration ActAdmissionAwardCivil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenges a composite judgment and decree passed by a Civil Judge in a recovery suit, which had been decided on the basis of a report submitted by a person designated as a Referee. The core legal question was whether the nominee appointed by the parties functioned as a Referee under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 or as an Arbitrator, given that he conducted spot inspections, received evidence, and resolved the dispute through a judicial determination. The Lahore High Court held that the nominee acted as an Arbitrator and not a Referee, because a Referee must possess pre-existing personal knowledge and merely furnish information to the Court constituting an admission, whereas an Arbitrator resolves disputes by receiving evidence and conducting inquiries. The Court laid down the principle that the intention of parties cannot override the mandatory provisions and definitions of law regarding the distinct scopes of a Referee and an Arbitrator. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal distinction between a Referee under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 and an Arbitrator?
  • Must a Referee's knowledge of the dispute precede his appointment?
  • Can parties agree to enlarge the scope of a Referee to include receiving evidence and conducting spot inspections?
  • Does a report rendered by a nominee who conducts inquiries and records evidence constitute an admission or an award?
  Read full judgment →
• Nausher Adil vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 462 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Naushair vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 297 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1883 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Akhtar vs Rehmat AliK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ullah, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Nasar-I-Alam vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 258 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Naqash Ahmed and another vs Muhammad Sharif and another1996 PLD Lahore 436 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08
  maintenance decreecourt-feememorandum of appealFamily Courtsubject-matter valueexemption thresholdwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging appellate court orders that demanded court-fees on memoranda of appeal arising from maintenance decrees passed by Family Courts. The core legal question was whether Section 7(ii) of the Court Fees Act 1870 applies to such appeals and how to determine the court-fee liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that Section 7(ii) is inapplicable to appeals from maintenance decrees. The Court established that the court-fee payable on such appeals must be determined by the value of the subject-matter, defined as the amount due under the decree on the date of its passing. The Court further held that if this subject-matter value does not exceed Rs. 25,000, no court-fee is chargeable pursuant to Section 2 of the Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance 1983. Conversely, if the value exceeds Rs. 25,000, court-fee is payable under Item 1, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870. Consequently, the impugned orders demanding court-fees were set aside as the subject-matter values in these cases were below the exemption threshold.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 7(ii) of the Court Fees Act 1870 apply to appeals arising from maintenance decrees passed by Family Courts?
  • How is the value of the subject-matter of an appeal against a maintenance decree determined for the purpose of court-fee calculation?
  • Is court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against a maintenance decree where the subject-matter value does not exceed Rs. 25,000?
  • What is the applicable court-fee rate for an appeal against a maintenance decree where the subject-matter value exceeds Rs. 25,000?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebuddin alias Najimuddin vs Nizamuddin1996 MLD 521 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ud Din Alias Najimuddin vs Nizamuddin1996 MLD 521 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Nahida Bibi Etc vs Abdul Majid EtcK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Naheed Ahmad vs Asif Riaz and 3 others1996 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-11
  Regular First Appeallimitationcondonation of delaycourt-feetrade customrecovery suitaccount books
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,69,000, representing the value of gold ornaments allegedly supplied to the respondents on credit. The appellant asserted a trade custom where ornaments were supplied on credit, with payment due after account verification. The respondents denied the transaction, raising pleas of multifariousness and non-maintainability. The High Court first addressed a preliminary limitation objection, as the appellant failed to pay the required court-fee or remove office objections within the specified time, refiling the appeal nearly two years late without applying for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. On the merits, the Court held that the appellant failed to prove the alleged trade custom or provide cogent evidence of the transaction, noting that the produced notebook was not regularly maintained. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal both as barred by limitation and on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal refiled after a long delay without removing office objections or paying the required court-fee is deemed presented on the original date of filing or the date of refiling?
  • Can the delay in refiling an appeal be condoned in the absence of a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a private notebook or account book that is not regularly maintained and contains blank pages under the law of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hvssain vs Mst. Hasina Mai And Another1996 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain vs Mst. Hasina Mai and anothers1996 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Naazreen Akhtar vs Family Judge, Lahore and another1996 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-22
  dissolution of marriagegeneral power of attorneyFamily Courtreview of orderconstitutional petitionrestitution of conjugal rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a family dispute where the petitioner, an Indian national and wife of respondent No. 2, filed a suit for dissolution of marriage through a general power of attorney while residing in India, alongside a pending suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband in Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for dissolution of marriage can be instituted through a general attorney under family laws, whether an Indian national can file such a suit in Pakistan, and whether a successor Family Court judge can review an earlier final order passed by a predecessor judge. The Lahore High Court held that Section 18 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 permits representation through an authorized agent, and a general power of attorney covering 'any Court' includes Family Courts. Furthermore, the Court held that a Family Court has no power of review under the Act to alter an unchallenging interlocutory order of a predecessor. The petition was accepted, setting aside the dismissal of the suit and remanding it for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for dissolution of marriage can be filed and prosecuted through a general power of attorney in a Family Court?
  • Does a Family Court have the power to review an order passed by its predecessor court which has attained finality?
  • Can an Indian national residing in India file a suit for dissolution of marriage in a Pakistani Family Court through an authorized agent?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Afzal Construction Co. vs Chairman CBR, Etc1996 P.C.T.L.R. 581 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sunrise Textiles Limited And Other vs Mashreq Bank PSC And Other(PTCL 1996 CL. 134) · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Service Sales Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 80-E/1 Gulberg III, Lahore, through Its(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 128) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through G.M vs C.B.R., And 4 Other(PTCL 1996 CL 450) · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Electric Company of Pakistan vs Allied Bank of Pakistan1996 CLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08
  execution proceedingssale proclamationauction salematerial irregularityfraudlimitationundervaluation of propertybanking court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Special Court Banking dismissing the judgment-debtor's application under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an auction sale of attached property. The core legal questions involved whether a misstatement of the day and date in the sale proclamation, coupled with a fraudulent undervaluation of the property, vitiated the auction, and which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governed such an application. The Lahore High Court held that misrepresenting the day of the auction, material undervaluation, and discrepancies between the attached property and the proclamation amount to fraud and material irregularity, rendering the sale void ab initio. Consequently, such applications are governed by the residuary Article 181 rather than Article 166 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court laid down the principle that where fraud or material irregularity directly causes substantial injury to the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings, the auction sale must be set aside, and the executing court must independently verify all particulars in the sale proclamation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a misstatement of the day and date in a sale proclamation constitutes a material irregularity or fraud sufficient to set aside an execution auction sale?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an execution sale on the grounds of fraud and nullity?
  • Does a decree-holder's intentional undervaluation of attached property in a sale proclamation amount to a fraud on the court?
  • Is a court auctioneer entitled to commission when an auction sale is set aside due to misconduct and incorrect publication of the proclamation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and anothers vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• M/s) Flying Board and Paper Products vs Central Board of Revenue,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mvhammad Ikram vs The State1996 MLD 2038 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mustajab Hasan and others vs Director Trade Organisations and others1996 CLC 1725 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitiontrade organizationselection disputelimitation periodvoid ordersjurisdiction failure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition pertains to a dispute regarding the membership and elections of the Towel Manufacturers' Association of Pakistan. The core legal question involved whether the Director Trade Organizations lawfully refused to entertain the petitioners' representation challenging the election results and expulsion of voters on the ground of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the representation concerning the Central Executive Committee elections was filed well within thirty days and that limitation does not run against allegedly void orders and fraudulent election processes. The Court ruled that the Director failed to exercise his statutory jurisdiction by dismissing the matter on technical grounds of time-bar without investigating foundational allegations of illegalities, including voter disenfranchisement and sham proceedings. The impugned order was declared void, and the Director was directed to decide the representation on merits within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation run against a void order or action in election disputes of trade organizations?
  • Can the Director Trade Organizations refuse to investigate election irregularities on the ground of limitation when a representation is filed within time?
  • Does a civil court possess jurisdiction over matters falling to be determined by the Director Trade Organizations?
  • Whether the non-disclosure of a withdrawn or pending civil suit bars the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Foundation Trust and another vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice Chancellor and 2 others1996 CLC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Assets Developers (Pvt.) Ltd.1996 MLD 248 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Assets Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and 31996 MLD 248 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs M.M. Traders and others1996 CLC 833 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs M.M. Traders And Other1996 P.C.T.L.R. 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed And Others vs The State1996 MLD 614 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mst. Safia BibiK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 635 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
• Musht Aq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain and others vs Muhammad Sharif though his Legal Heirs1996 CLC 161 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04
  pre-emption suitpower of attorneystrict constructiongeneral power of attorneycompetency of attorneyinstitution of suitregular first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed by the purchasers against the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had decreed a pre-emption suit filed by the general attorney of the pre-emptor. The appellants challenged the decree solely on the finding regarding Issue No. 9-A, arguing that the general attorney lacked the legal competence and specific authority under the power of attorney (Exh. D-13) to institute the pre-emption suit on behalf of the principal. The Lahore High Court examined the text of the power of attorney and held that powers of attorney must be strictly construed. The Court classified general powers of attorney into two types: those conferring unlimited authority regarding all present and future affairs/properties, and those restricted to specific properties or acts. Because Exh. D-13 pertained only to a specific property, it did not empower the attorney to file a suit for pre-emption regarding another property. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court's finding on Issue No. 9-A, and dismissed the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney must be strictly construed when ascertaining the extent of authority conferred on an attorney?
  • Can a general attorney whose power of attorney is limited to a specific property institute a suit for pre-emption in respect of another property without specific authorization?
  • What is the legal distinction between an all-inclusive general power of attorney and a general power of attorney executed for a specific property or purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Murid Abbas vs The State1996 MLD 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Munshi Muhammad Azam vs A.C. and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30
  civil servanttransfer and postingterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High Courtservice tribunalconstitutional barmala fide transferconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of fifty-six writ petitions filed by civil servants of the Province of Punjab challenging the legality of their transfer orders. The core legal question determined by the court is whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters concerning the posting and transfer of civil servants. The Lahore High Court held that the posting and transfer of a civil servant is an integral matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, and consequently, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is ousted by virtue of the constitutional bar under Article 212(2). The key principles laid down are that transfer orders affecting terms and conditions fall exclusively within the domain of the Punjab Service Tribunal; that civil servants retain the right to challenge transfer orders before the Tribunal on grounds of being mala fide, arbitrary, or violative of statutory rules and departmental instructions; and that administrative tribunals established pursuant to legislative acts satisfy the constitutional criteria under Article 212.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Whether the posting and transfer of a civil servant constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of his service under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an order of transfer before the Service Tribunal on the grounds of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of authority?
  • Does the requirement of filing a departmental representation or waiting period preclude the immediate availability of a remedy before the Service Tribunal so as to lift the constitutional bar under Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Gujrat vs Allah Ditta1996 MLD 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →