Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mehinwal Khan vs Khuda Bakhsh Aid Other1996 MLD 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hassan vs Ahmed Ali1996 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali vs The State and 3 others1996 PLD Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the registration of an F.I.R. against a Revenue Patwari, a public servant, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether a local Station House Officer (S.H.O.) possessed the legal authority to register and investigate a criminal case against a public servant for scheduled offences, or if such jurisdiction exclusively vested in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Court held that the registration of the F.I.R. by the S.H.O. was illegal and without lawful authority. The Court determined that under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961 and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, cases involving public servants for scheduled offences must be initiated and registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment following specific preliminary inquiries and written orders from designated officers. Consequently, the F.I.R. was quashed, though the Court clarified that the competent authorities remained free to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.
Questions settled- Does a local Station House Officer have the authority to register a criminal case against a public servant for scheduled corruption offences?
- Are offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 committed by a public servant considered scheduled offences under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961?
- What is the mandatory procedure for registering a criminal case against a public servant under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985?
- Can a court quash an F.I.R. if it was registered by an officer lacking the requisite legal authority?
- Mazhar vs State1996 CLC 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Rashid Zahid vs Punjab Provincial Transport Authority(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 87) · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, M.Na. vs Khurshid Ali and another1996 P Cr. L J 119 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent by the High Court in a writ petition. The petitioner contended that the bail order was passed without jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court dictum requiring matters under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 to be heard by a Division Bench. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to review, recall, or revise its own order passed in a constitutional petition involving criminal matters. The Court held that it lacks the jurisdiction to review or alter its own judgment, as Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 precludes such review in criminal matters. The Court emphasized that allowing such reviews would lead to litigation multiplicity and conflict with statutory provisions. Furthermore, it affirmed that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remains distinct and cannot be undermined by subsequent attempts to relitigate settled orders through bail cancellation applications.
Questions settled- Is the High Court competent to review or recall its own order passed in a criminal matter?
- Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the High Court from reviewing its own judgments?
- Can a bail cancellation application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to seek a review of a High Court's previous order?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to examine detention facts under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 even if the detenu is involved in a criminal case?
- Mateen vs The State1996 MLD 633 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Master Shah Wali Khan vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Islamabad and 41996 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Masjid Hanfia vs Qurban Hussain Shah1996 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal challenged a civil court judgment dismissing a suit for possession of land (Ahata) filed by Masjid Hanfia against the respondent. The trial court had ruled that the mosque was not a juristic person, the suit was time-barred, and the respondent had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The High Court reversed this decision. It held that a mosque is a juristic person capable of suing and being sued. The court affirmed that property dedicated as Waqf for a mosque is property of God, and no individual, including a caretaker (Mujawar), can claim ownership or title through adverse possession, regardless of the duration of occupation. Furthermore, the court found the suit was filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's decree, ruling that the respondents had no legal right to the property, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiffs. The judgment reinforces the principle that Waqf properties are protected from private encroachment and that mosques possess legal standing to protect their assets.
Questions settled- Is a mosque considered a juristic person capable of suing and being sued?
- Can a caretaker (Mujawar) of a mosque claim ownership of Waqf property through adverse possession?
- Does the law of limitation apply to Waqf property dedicated to a mosque?
- Can a suit for possession of Waqf property be filed in a representative capacity?
- Mashooq Ali Alias Shooka vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Masab Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed alias Sooda vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-23Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs The State1996 MLD 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs Abdul Qayyum and others1996 CLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
- Manzoor, Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 363 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 830 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Special Judge Banking, Lahore and others1996 CLC 422 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, dismissing the petitioner's application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the encashment of irrevocable letters of credit (LCs) issued in connection with a contract for the supply of cotton. The core legal question was whether a court can restrain the encashment of an irrevocable letter of credit or bank guarantee based on a private dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller. The Lahore High Court held that banks deal in documents and not goods, and an irrevocable letter of credit constitutes an independent, absolute obligation of the bank to pay upon presentation of stipulated documents conforming on their face. The Court ruled that interim injunctions restraining the operation of LCs or bank guarantees should not be granted except in clear, established cases of fraud known to the bank, as interference severely impacts international trade. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain the encashment of an irrevocable letter of credit due to a dispute over the quality of goods between the buyer and seller?
- Are banks dealing in underlying commercial contracts or solely in shipping and commercial documents under letters of credit?
- Under what circumstances will an exception be made to the general rule prohibiting injunctions against the payment of irrevocable letters of credit?
- Does the lack of local assets by a foreign seller justify granting an interim injunction to freeze payments under an irrevocable letter of credit?
- Manzoor Hussain vs District Health Officer, Khanewal1996 PLC (C.S.) 562 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed alias Manzoor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Messrs Facto (Pakistan) Ltd. And Other1996 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Facto (Pakistan) Ltd. ant others1996 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Ahmad Yar and 3 others1996 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Ahmad Yar And 3 Other1996 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Khan vs CH.Shah Muhammad, S.H.O, And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 155 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Azam vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 432 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mansab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Sanaullah vs Mst. Roheela Hassan And Other1996 MLD 702 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Malik Mushtaq, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Pervez vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and anothers1996 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Pervez vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar And Another1996 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar vs S.H.O.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 633 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Malik Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs ICI Pakistan Ltd And Another(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 35) · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mahmud Ahmad vs Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department, filed a Constitutional petition challenging his transfer order, alleging it was mala fide and orchestrated by a local Member of the Provincial Assembly due to personal animosity. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against a transfer order of a civil servant, particularly when mala fides are alleged, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including transfers, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Court emphasized that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, creates a distinct hierarchy for redressing civil servant grievances, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that allegations of mala fides do not provide a basis to bypass this statutory bar, as such claims must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a Constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
- Can allegations of mala fides in a transfer order bypass the jurisdictional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a transfer order of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Mahmood Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government through Secretary, Cabinet1996 CLC 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an Advocate seeking to declare the allotment of public property and plots to Parliamentarians in Islamabad as illegal, unconstitutional, and un-Islamic. The core legal questions involved whether the reservation of plots for Parliamentarians violated Articles 66 and 173(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether such executive action lacked lawful authority or suffered from mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that Article 66 pertains only to parliamentary proceedings and speech, and does not disqualify members from holding property as citizens. Furthermore, the court held that the transfer of State land within Islamabad is governed by the Capital Development Authority Act along with its rules and regulations, satisfying the legal requirements under Article 173(5), and that mala fides cannot be presumed. The court also noted that since reservation of plots for other professional classes like lawyers has been customary and justifiable, similar treatment for Parliamentarians is not open to objection. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of developed plots to Parliamentarians violates Article 66 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the transfer of State land within the capital area of Islamabad require a specific law under Article 173(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can mala fides be presumed against an official act without concrete proof?
- Whether the reservation of plots in development schemes for specific classes of persons is lawful under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- M.D. Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- M.A. Rashid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
- M. Latif vs The State1996 MLD 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for an offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted after the trial had commenced and a previous application had been dismissed. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the case warranted further inquiry into his guilt. This conclusion was based on the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix, the failure to recover the alleged weapon, and evidence of long-standing enmity between the parties, suggesting potential false implication. The court affirmed that a second bail application is maintainable when the prior application was not decided on merits. It further established that the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where reasonable grounds for guilt are absent, overrides the general judicial practice of refusing bail once a trial has commenced.
Questions settled- Is a second bail application maintainable if the first application was not decided on merits?
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically bar the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can bail be granted under the 'further inquiry' provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of physical injuries on a victim in a rape case constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- M. D. Tahir, Advocate vs Province of the Punjab through its Chief1996 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- M. D. Tahir, Advocate vs Province of the Punjab Through Its Chief1996 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan1996 PLD Lahore 658 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an advocate seeking a direction to the Federation of Pakistan to hold a referendum on introducing a Presidential system of government instead of the prevalent Parliamentary system. The core legal questions addressed were whether a citizen qualifies as an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge the form of government, whether the discretionary power of the President or Prime Minister to hold a referendum under Article 48 of the Constitution is enforceable through a writ of mandamus, and whether the judiciary can interfere in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the executive. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as an 'aggrieved party' because no personal or proprietary rights were adversely affected, and that a citizen has no legal or specific right to compel the executive to exercise its discretion to hold a referendum. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional powers vested in the executive cannot be compelled through writ jurisdiction, and courts will not interfere with the trichotomy of powers established by the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether a citizen can be considered an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the prevalent Parliamentary system of government?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the President or the Prime Minister to exercise discretion under Article 48 of the Constitution to hold a referendum?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere with matters pertaining to the exclusive domain of the executive under a written Constitution?
- Luqman and 6 others vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Liaqat and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat And Another vs The State1996 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Aslam and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain vs Muhammad Akber and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Lal and 21 others vs The Member, Federal Land Commission and 3 others1996 CLC 308 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. vs Asmatullah Sheikh1996 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange (G) Ltd. vs Asmatullah Sheikh1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Javid vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
- Lahore Grammar School (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers vs Mst. Hameeda1996 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the trial court's decision and granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from opening and establishing a private school on a residential premises situated in a residential locality of Gulberg, Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether the conversion of a residential building into a commercial enterprise like a school is permissible under urban building regulations without proper authorization, whether local residents have the legal right to enforce such building regulations, and whether the anticipated establishment of a school constitutes an actionable private nuisance. The Lahore High Court held that the conversion of property inconsistent with the master plan or approved scheme is prohibited under the relevant building regulations, that residents of the area possess a vested right to seek enforcement of these regulations, and that the proposed establishment of a school in a residential zone constitutes a private nuisance warranting injunctive relief. The court laid down the principle that residents are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their properties in residential areas and can seek interim protection against threatened violations and nuisances before they materialize.
Questions settled- Whether the conversion of a residential property into a commercial school violates urban building regulations?
- Do residents of a locality have the right to seek enforcement of building regulations through a civil court?
- Does the anticipated opening of a school in a residential area constitute an actionable private nuisance?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted against a threatened injury or apprehended nuisance before it materializes?
- Lahore Diocesen Trust vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories1996 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Lahore Diocesen Trust vs Glaxo Laboratories1996 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Lahore cANTT Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Mian Ahmed Din and others1996 CLC 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad Lang vs The State and others1996 P Cr. L J 1292 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Minister for Revenue and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1996 CLC 127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Khayaban-E-Iqbal (Pvt) Ltd And 2 Other vs Mustafa Haji Muhammad And Other1996 K.L.R. Civil Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Mazhar Farid Kureja vs Government of the Punjab and 51996 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Khan Yunus Khan And 2 Others vs The State1996 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2052 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 973 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz And Another vs The State1996 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mukhtar vs Mrs. Sadiqa Tasneem1996 CLC 741 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges a decree for the recovery of money based on a promissory note. The core legal question concerns whether an appellant, who requested the court to appoint an expert to compare disputed signatures and thumb impressions and explicitly undertook to be bound by the expert's report, is subsequently estopped from challenging the adverse findings of that report. The Court held that the appellant was bound by the expert's opinion, as parties may by agreement adopt a procedure contrary to the ordinary cursus curiae when the court possesses general jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellant was precluded from challenging the decision on merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a promissory note carries a statutory presumption of consideration, placing the burden on the defendant to prove the absence of such consideration. As the appellant failed to rebut this presumption or provide credible evidence, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Can parties to a proceeding by agreement adopt a procedure contrary to the ordinary cursus curiae?
- Is an appellant estopped from challenging an expert's report if they previously undertook to be bound by said report?
- Does a promissory note carry a statutory presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to rebut the presumption of consideration in a promissory note?
- Khalid Memhood vs S.S.P., Gujrat and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood and 9 others vs The Station House Officer, Police1996 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khalid Iqbal vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khair Din vs Abdul H4eem1996 MLD 646 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- Khair Deen vs Rehm Deen and 4 others1996 CLC 1731 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Court committed a legal error by failing to dispose of a pending application for the production of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, before deciding the appeal on its merits. The High Court examined the record and confirmed that the Appellate Court had indeed failed to pass any order regarding the said application. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that it is incumbent upon a court to ensure that all pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of, either by order or dismissal, before hearing arguments in a suit or appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and remanded the case to the Appellate Court with directions to decide the appeal afresh after specifically disposing of the application for additional evidence within a stipulated timeframe.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court legally required to dispose of a pending application for additional evidence before deciding an appeal on its merits?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to pass a specific order on a pending miscellaneous application constitute a ground for setting aside its judgment?
- Can an appellate court ignore a pending application for additional evidence if the party has not pressed it during the hearing?
- Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The State and others1996 MLD 903 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain And Another vs The State And Another1996 MLD 903 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- KH Alid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Ara vs Punjab UniversityK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Kanwar Abdul Rashid vs Capt. Munir Ahmad, Assistant Commissioner, Arifwala, District Pakpattan and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Kaneez Bibi vs Sooba1996 CLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 seeking the transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights from Narowal to Lahore, where the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage was pending. The core legal question concerned the convenience of parties, the petitioner's ordinary place of residence, and whether the transfer of family suits should be ordered. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish ordinary residence in Lahore and exhibited contumacious conduct by refusing to appear before the Family Court at Narowal despite directions. Consequently, the High Court disallowed the transfer of the restitution suit to Lahore and, exercising its suo motu powers under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, withdrew the dissolution of marriage suit from Lahore and transferred it to Narowal to be tried along with the restitution suit. The key principle laid down is that a party displaying contumacious conduct and failing to establish bona fides regarding residence is not entitled to discretionary relief for the transfer of a family suit, and conflicting family proceedings between the same parties ought to be tried at one place to avoid contradictory judgments.
Questions settled- Can a family suit be transferred under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 when the petitioner fails to establish ordinary residence within the jurisdiction of the transferee court?
- Does a party's refusal to put in appearance before the trial court disentitle them to discretionary relief for the transfer of a suit?
- Can the High Court exercise suo motu powers under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 to transfer a family suit to another court for a joint trial?
- Kamran Haider vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
- Kalsoom Akhtar, Widow And 3 Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 13 OtherK.L.R, 1996 Civil Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Jumma and 8 others vs Mst. Zainab Khatoon1996 CLC 686 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
- Jhangli, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jhangli and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jehangir and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Ghaziabad, Sahiwal1996 PLD Lahore 598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Jeewan Bakhsh and others vs Fazal Ahmad and 52 others1996 CLC 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
- Javed Mahmood vs The State1996 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Javed Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Javaid Iqbal vs The State And 2 Other1996 MLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Burke vs Jalal Masih1996 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
- Jamroze and 4 others vs The State1996 MLD 8 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Jahangir Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order by the Sessions Judge forfeiting surety bonds to the extent of Rs. 90,000 each after the accused absconded. The core legal question concerned whether the forfeiture was excessive and whether the trial court failed to properly evaluate the circumstances of the sureties. The High Court held that while the order of forfeiture was not illegal, the quantum of the penalty was excessive. The Court reduced the forfeited amount to Rs. 10,000 per surety. The key principle laid down is that in cases of surety default, courts must strike a balance between preventing the abuse of the bail system and avoiding undue severity that might discourage citizens from acting as sureties. Factors to be considered include the surety's financial status, the absence of pecuniary or blood connection to the accused, and the efforts made by the sureties to secure the attendance of the absconding accused. A general rise in crime statistics does not justify harsh financial penalties.
Questions settled- Is a general rise in crime statistics a valid ground for the forfeiture of surety bonds?
- What factors should a court consider when determining the amount of a forfeited surety bond?
- Can a court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond if the original forfeiture is found to be excessive?
- Jahangir Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 259 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Jahangir Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 313 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- Jahangir and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of F.I.R. No. 345/94 registered under sections 302, 337, and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bahawalpur, concerning the alleged murder of the complainant's son by poisoning. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence comprising last-seen evidence, a joint extra-judicial confession made to close relatives of the complainant, and a chemical examiner's report indicating insecticide constituted reasonable grounds to warrant withholding bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the probative value of the last-seen evidence and the joint extra-judicial confession was open to serious doubt at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that where the prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence whose reliability is questionable and subject to further evaluation, particularly regarding unnatural extra-judicial confessions and routine association, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether joint extra-judicial confessions made to close relatives of a complainant provide sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Does last-seen evidence alone constitute a sufficient bar to bail when the accused and the deceased were admittedly on visiting terms?
- Whether a case resting on circumstantial evidence like chemical examiner reports and questionable confessions warrants further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- Jaffar vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
- Jabbar Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
- Ja.Mroze And 4 Others vs The State1996 MLD 8 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Ishfaq Ahmed vs Secretary to Government and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 288 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →