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.

• Faqir Muhammad And Others vs D.S.P., C.I.A., Rahimyar Khan And Other1996 MLD 165 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher alias Falku and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 804 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18
  appellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat CourtHudood Ordinancecriminal appealtrial forumstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence under Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari. Although the trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, the core legal question before the High Court concerned the appellate jurisdiction: whether an appeal against a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 lies to the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court when the initial trial was conducted under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The Court held that since the trial was initiated under the Hudood Ordinance, the appellate jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of the ultimate conviction being under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that the forum of appeal is determined by the statute under which the trial is conducted, and once a trial is held under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, the Federal Shariat Court retains exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate jurisdiction lie with the Federal Shariat Court if the trial was conducted under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, even if the final conviction is under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to examine both facts and law in appeals arising from the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a trial court competent to convict an offender for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the proceedings were initiated under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Zaman vs The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab1996 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Employees' Union,Registered Adam Sugar Mills Limited vs The Registrar, Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur and others1996 PLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad and 12 others vs Abdul Sattar1996 CLC 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-13
  inheritance disputelimitation periodadverse possessionburden of prooffraudmutation of inheritanceco-heirscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land following the death of Atta Muhammad in 1944-45. The plaintiff claimed to be the deceased's son and challenged a 1951 mutation of inheritance in favor of the deceased's brothers, alleging fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove his paternity and that the suit was time-barred. The first appellate court reversed this decision. Upon revision, the High Court held that the appellate court misread the evidence and ignored mandatory legal provisions. The Court found the plaintiff failed to prove paternity or fraud, noting that fraud must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, as the parties were not co-heirs or co-sharers, and the defendants' possession was adverse to the plaintiff for over 40 years. Consequently, the High Court restored the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the burden of proving fraud lies heavily on the party alleging it, particularly after a significant lapse of time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle that limitation does not run against co-heirs apply when the parties are not actually co-heirs or co-sharers?
  • Is a document admissible to contradict a witness if the mandatory procedure for confronting the witness with the document under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is not followed?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish fraud in civil proceedings regarding the mutation of inheritance?
  • Does an entry in the record of rights carry a presumption of truth under Section 52 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, until rebutted?
  Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad alias Duri and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 435 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tariq Aziz vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 189 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Altaf Hussain Bokhari vs Siddique Ahmad Chaudhry and another1996 CLC 654 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01
  quantum of damageslocal inspectionexpert evidencesecond appealright of supportdemolition and re-erection
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a regular second appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court in a suit for recovery of damages and mandatory and perpetual injunction, wherein the appellant's suit was decreed only to the extent of thirty thousand rupees. The core legal question revolves around whether a trial court can assess the quantum of damages and decide an issue solely on the basis of its personal local inspection under Order 18, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while ignoring the testimony of expert witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that a judge's local inspection is merely meant to help understand the controversy and appreciate the evidence on record, and it cannot serve as a substitute for substantive evidence unless agreed upon by the parties. The court ruled that the trial judge erred by relying on personal visual observation instead of expert testimony. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, remitting the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision based on the existing evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local inspection carried out by a judge under Order 18, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be used as a substitute for substantive evidence on record?
  • Can a court determine the quantum of damages for property loss based on personal visual observations while ignoring the testimony of expert witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Suhail Abbas Khan vs Punjab Province through Chief Secretary, Civil1996 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Suhail Abbas Khan vs Punjab Province Through Chief Secretary, Civil1996 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Noor Homoeopathic vs National Council1996 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-14
  writ petitionstatutory dutysubordinate legislationrecognition of collegemandatory obligationadministrative lawHomeopathic Practitioners Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the inaction of the National Council regarding the petitioner's application for recognition of its Homeopathic College, which had remained pending since 1994. The core legal question was whether the Council possessed the authority to reject the application internally or if it was legally mandated to forward the application to the Federal Government. The Court held that under Section 17(4) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, the Council is under a mandatory obligation to forward every application for recognition to the Federal Government, along with its recommendations, regardless of the Council's own assessment. The Court clarified that subordinate regulations framed by the Council cannot override the parent statute. Consequently, the Council's decision to reject the application internally was declared to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that statutory provisions requiring a body to forward applications to a higher authority impose a mandatory duty, leaving no discretion to withhold or unilaterally terminate such applications at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Council have the discretion to reject an application for college recognition without forwarding it to the Federal Government?
  • Can regulations framed under a statute override the provisions of the parent statute?
  • Is the requirement for the Council to forward recognition applications to the Federal Government under Section 17(4) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act 1965 mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Akram vs Vice-Chancellor and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 220 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Dosa vs The State1996 MLD 768 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Doast Muhammad vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Diwan Azmat Said Muhammad vs Haji Bakhtiar Saeed1996 CLC 1427 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11
  transfer of appealapprehension of biasparty to proceedingssuo motu transferinherent powersimpartial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought the transfer of an appeal pending before an Additional District Judge to another court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of apprehension of bias. The core legal question revolved around whether an applicant seeking to be impleaded as a party via an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 qualifies as a 'party' entitled to maintain a transfer application, and whether the High Court could exercise transfer powers. The Lahore High Court held that a person whose interest is likely to be prejudiced and who has moved an impleadment application is covered under the term 'party' for the purposes of section 24, and in any event, the High Court possesses suo motu and inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as well as Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to transfer cases. The court laid down the principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, and transfer is warranted when reasonable apprehensions of bias exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an applicant who has filed an application for impleadment as a party can maintain a transfer application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the High Court possess suo motu and inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Constitution to transfer a pending appeal?
  • What constitutes a 'party' under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to pending judicial proceedings?
  • When can an appeal be transferred from one district to another on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the presiding officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Case 513 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain vs Muhammad Saleem, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 179 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Dil Murad vs Muhammad Aslam and 6 others1996 P Cr. L J 745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22
  bail cancellationcriminal trialpost-arrest bailshajjah-i-hashimahpolice challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of a criminal case registered under sections 337, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Magistrate Section 30, which was earlier upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether bail already granted to an accused should be cancelled by the High Court when the challan has been submitted and the trial is about to commence. The court held that bail should not be cancelled at such a belated stage when the trial is imminent, following established principles laid down by the superior courts. The key principle laid down is that superior courts ordinarily decline to interfere with or cancel bail on merits when the trial has reached the stage of commencement and is about to proceed, in order to avoid prejudice to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted should be cancelled when the challan has been submitted and the trial is about to commence?
  • Does the superior court interfere with a bail grant on merits when the trial is at the evidence stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shafi/ vs Maj. (Retd.) M. Iqbal Hussain and others1996 PLD Lahore 667 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10
  arbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingsreadiness and willingnessbreach of contractdiscretionary powerarbitration act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, whereby the trial Court stayed the proceedings in a civil suit filed by the appellant for recovery of damages for breach of contract. The core legal question is whether the respondent satisfied the statutory requirement of being ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of arbitration at the commencement of the suit, particularly when the respondent had previously refused the appellant's requests to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Lahore High Court held that the power to stay proceedings under section 34 is discretionary and requires the applicant to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to arbitrate, which the respondent failed to do given his prior express refusal. The court established the principle that a party who fails to respond or refuses to cooperate when called upon by the opposite party to settle disputes through arbitration prior to the filing of a suit cannot subsequently invoke section 34 to stay legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power to stay legal proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 discretionary?
  • Does a party's refusal to submit to arbitration prior to the filing of a suit negate subsequent readiness and willingness under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Must an applicant seeking a stay of proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 plead and prove readiness and willingness to go to arbitration at the time the suit was filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Daula vs Channa and another1996 P Cr. L J 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone-B, Lahore vs Muhammad Shahbaz1996 PTD 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone-a, Lahore vs Malik Bashir Ahmad1996 PTD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faisalabad vs Yousaf Sons, Sargodha1996 PTD 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi vs Pak. Mineral Industries1996 PTD 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore vs National Fertilizer1996 PTD 276 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09
  income taxdividend incomeconcessional tax ratesuper-taxstatutory interpretationtaxing statutereference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, seeking to compel the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law to the High Court. The core legal question was whether dividend income received by the respondent, a public limited company, was entitled to a concessional rate of super-tax under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regardless of whether such income was classified as business income or income from other sources. The department argued that the income should be taxed at normal rates, citing the assessee's previous treatment of dividends as business income. The Court held that the concessional rate of super-tax prescribed in the First Schedule is applicable solely based on the fulfillment of the conditions specified therein, specifically that the dividend income must be from a Pakistani company. The Court affirmed that tax statutes must be interpreted based on their plain language without implying additional requirements. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the department's request to refer the question.

  Questions settled

  • Is the applicability of a concessional rate of super-tax on dividend income dependent on the head of income under which it is classified?
  • Does the previous treatment of dividend income by an assessee as business income preclude the application of a concessional tax rate under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the primary condition for the application of a concessional rate of super-tax on dividend income under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. Syed Maqbool Hussain vs Syed Waqar Hassan and anothers1996 MLD 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Col. Syed Maqbool Hussain vs Syed Waqar Hassan And Another1996 MLD 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Chughatta And Others vs The State1996 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervez Elahi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 559 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervaiz Elahi Versus . CH. Pervaiz Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 631 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hameed and 9 others vs General Manager, Pakistan1996 PLC (C.S.) 72 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1996 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Province of the Punjab Through Secretary, Housing And Physical Planning Department, Civil Secretariat Lahore And 3 Other1996 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• CH. Mehdi Khan And Another vs 'R'(k.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service 138) · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk vs Commissioner Appeals Income Tax and others1996 PTD 279 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12
  Income TaxDeeming ProvisionAppellate ProcedureStatutory NoticeWrit JurisdictionMandatory Compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the validity of recovery notices and seeking a declaration that his income tax appeal for the year 1994-95 had been accepted by operation of law. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide an appeal within the three-month period prescribed by Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 automatically results in the appeal being deemed accepted, or whether such relief is contingent upon compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Lahore High Court held that the deeming provision in Section 132(5) is not self-executing. It ruled that the appellant must strictly comply with the mandatory pre-conditions set out in Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, specifically the requirement to serve a written notice personally on the Commissioner at least thirty days before the expiration of the three-month period. As the petitioner failed to serve this mandatory notice, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to decide an income tax appeal within the three-month period prescribed by Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 automatically result in the appeal being deemed accepted?
  • Is the service of a written notice under Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 a mandatory pre-condition for invoking the deeming provisions of Section 132(5)?
  • Does the fact that an appeal has been fixed or heard by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dispense with the requirement to serve a formal notice under Section 132(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. C.Hulam Ali vs CH. Muhammad Nawaz, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Majid and others vs Station House Officer and others1996 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Secretary and 3 others1996 MLD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Secretary And 3 Other1996 MLD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Calicon (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan And Other1996 MLD 705 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-06
  privatizationexecutive authoritygovernment propertylocus standiconstitutional petitiondiscretionary jurisdictiontender rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the privatization and sale of controlling shares of D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. by the Federal Government through the Privatisation Commission. The core legal questions raised were whether an Act of the appropriate legislature is a prerequisite under Article 173(1) of the Constitution for the executive sale of government-owned property, whether the Federal Government was required to frame statutory rules to structure its discretionary jurisdiction in privatization matters, and whether the rejection of the petitioner's highest bid was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Lahore High Court held that the executive authority under Article 173(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is co-extensive with legislative power and does not require a prior specific Act of the legislature as a prerequisite for the sale or disposal of government property. The Court further held that while executive actions in privatization must be transparent, fair, and free from arbitrariness or discrimination, the petitioner failed to comply with the essential payment terms of the letter of intent and approached the court with unclean hands. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Act of the appropriate legislature is a prerequisite for the exercise of executive authority for the sale or disposal of property vested in the Federal or Provincial Government under Article 173 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the privatization and sale of state-owned shares by the executive are amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a bidder who fails to fulfill the mandatory financial deposit requirements under a letter of intent qualifies as an aggrieved party with locus standi to challenge the rejection of its tender?
  • Whether the Privatisation Commission is legally justified in negotiating with subsequent highest bidders upon default by the initial highest tenderer?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Boota Masih vs Mjan Javed EtcK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases l2 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Boota Masih vs Mian Javed and anothers1996 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Boota Masih vs Mian Javed And Another1996 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Bhirawan vs Ladha and others1996 MLD 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bhirawan vs Ladha And Other1996 MLD 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi vs Shama Mumtaz Begum and anothers1996 MLD 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi vs Shama Mumtaz Begum And Another1996 M LD 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1996 MLD 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir And 3 Others vs The State1996 MLD 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and 8 others vs Sher Din1996 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Nankana1996 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Butt alias Bashira vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07
  post-arrest bailconfession of co-accusedmurderstatutory delayevidentiary value of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Bashir Ahmad Butt, who is charged with the murder of a Sub-Inspector during an encounter involving Chenab Rangers and alleged gold smugglers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and statutory grounds, given that he was not named in the F.I.R., was not apprehended at the scene, and was implicated primarily through the confession of a co-accused. The Court observed that while a co-accused's confession can be considered as a circumstance during a joint trial, it is generally insufficient by itself to secure a conviction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delay in the trial was not primarily attributable to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that the confession of a co-accused, while admissible as a circumstance in a joint trial, does not constitute sufficient evidence on its own to sustain a conviction, thereby weakening the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can the confession of a co-accused alone be sufficient to secure a conviction?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution case rests primarily on the confession of a co-accused and the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs Mst. Ramzanan Mai and another1996 CLC 1782 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali and another vs Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Mananwala Circle, Sheikhupura1996 PTD 268 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bakht Ali vs (Mst.) Sharifan (Deceased) Rep. By LrsK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 450 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Bakht Ali and others vs Mst. Sharifan and others1996 CLC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Baggu vs Mst. Rahiman Bibi1996 MLD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25
  gift mutationburden of proofilliterate womanpardanashin ladyevidentiary value of mutationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment whereby the respondent-plaintiff's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding land ownership was decreed, setting aside the trial court's judgment. The core legal question concerned the validity of a gift mutation alleged to have been executed by the illiterate female respondent in favor of her brother, and the burden of proof regarding transactions involving illiterate women and the evidentiary value of mutations. The Lahore High Court held that mutation by itself does not confer title or act as a substantive piece of evidence, and where property of an illiterate or pardanashin lady is transferred, the heavy burden of proof lies on the beneficiary to establish the valid execution, free understanding, and essential ingredients of a gift. Finding that the petitioner failed to prove the mutation and that the appellate court's judgment contained no material irregularity, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation by itself confer any title or act as a substantive piece of evidence of a transaction?
  • Where a property of an illiterate or pardanashin woman is transferred through a mutation, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish its valid execution?
  • What are the essential ingredients that must exist to constitute a valid gift under the law?
  • When a party alleges fraud regarding a document, how does the initial burden of proof shift between the contesting parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Baggu vs (Mst.) Rahiman BibiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 21 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Badar Munir vs S.H.O., Police Station Jhawarian, District Sargodha1996 MLD 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Badar Munir vs S .0. Police Station Jhawarian, District Sargodha and 3 others1996 MLD 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Azizurrehman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLD Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Muhammad Aslam EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Azizul HaqK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ud Din and anothers vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-23Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ud Din And Another vs The State And Another1996 MLD 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-23Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Kamran Eshai vs Water and Power Development Authority1996 MLD 69 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Eshai vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Its Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House EtcK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 623 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Auqaf Department Punjab, Lahore through Chief Administrator and anothers vs Saeed Ahmad and anothers1996 MLD 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Auqaf Department Punjab, Lahore Through Chief Administrator And Another vs Saeed Ahmad And Another1996 MLD 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Auqaf Department Punjab And Another vs Saeed Ahmad And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Attock Oil Company vs Ghaith Rashad Pharaon and others1996 CLC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16
  stay of suitres sub judiceforeign judgmentinterlocutory orderstemporary injunctionrevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from an interim order passed by the Civil Judge, Islamabad, adjourning sine die a civil suit filed by the Attock Oil Company Ltd. through David Waters, which sought declarations, possession of assets, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction based on a foreign judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. The trial court stayed the proceedings to await the final judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, in earlier instituted suits where the foreign judgment's operation had been suspended, thereby avoiding conflicting adjudications. The Lahore High Court examined whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied, holding that identity of subject matter, issues, and parties is not a strict sine qua non, and that courts possess inherent powers to stay suits when matters in issue are substantially the same. The High Court further held that staying a main suit does not preclude the trial court from exercising powers regarding interlocutory matters such as temporary injunctions. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed upholding the stay order, but the trial court was directed to decide the pending interlocutory injunction application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absolute identity of subject-matters, issues, and parties is a sine qua non for the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a trial court entertain and decide interlocutory matters such as temporary injunctions after staying the main suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • How does a foreign judgment operate and require enforcement under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before it can be acted upon in domestic proceedings?
  • Does a court possess inherent powers to stay a suit independently of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent conflicting adjudications?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiqurrehman vs V.C. University of Engineering1996 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Attiq Ur Rehman vs V.C. University of Engineering1996 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The Income Tax Officer, Etc.PTCL 1996 CL. 387 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs Income Tax Officer and others1996 PTD 273 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Atta Rasool vs Fateh Khan, Etc.1996 KLR Civil Cases 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Atif Ramzan vs The State1996 MLD 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhamm'ad and others vs Sultan and another1996 CLC 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 76) · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Forest1996 PLC (C.S.) 851 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11
  reinstatementlocus poenitentiaevested rightspromissory estoppelconstitutional petitioncivil servantrevocation of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the revocation of the petitioner's reinstatement into government service. The petitioner, formerly a Forester removed from service in 1973 whose departmental appeals and Supreme Court challenges failed by 1978, was later reinstated by the Governor of the Punjab in 1986 under Section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. After serving for nearly eight years, the reinstatement order was revoked in 1994 based on advice from the Regulation Wing, Law Department, and Advocate-General. The core legal questions involved whether a completed reinstatement order creating vested rights could be rescinded years later, and whether the Governor could act upon the advice of departmental wings rather than the constitutional mechanism under Article 105. The Lahore High Court held that the revocation was illegal as a vested right had accrued, attracting the principle of locus poenitentiae once the order took legal effect and the employee entered service. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Governor must act on the constitutional advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet under Article 105, not subordinate departmental wings. The petition was allowed, setting aside the revocation order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of reinstatement taking legal effect and creating vested rights can be revoked after several years under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  • Can the Governor of a Province lawfully revoke an order based on the advice of departmental wings rather than the constitutional advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet under Article 105 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Lahore High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition against the withdrawal of a reinstatement order where no other efficacious remedy is available before the Services Tribunal?
  • What are the limitations on the doctrine of promissory estoppel when invoked against the Government and its functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 69) · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asifa Jaffar Alvi vs University of Punjab1996 CLC 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali CH. vs The Registrar, Cooperative Society Punjab, Lahore and 31996 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali CH. vs The Registrar, Cooperative Society Punja Lahore And 31996 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Asia Flour Mills and others vs Director of Food and others1996 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02
  Section 144 CrPCinter-provincial tradefreedom of tradeconstitutional petitionwheat movementpublic tranquilityadministrative excess
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged successive orders passed by the District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, prohibiting the movement of wheat and wheat products outside the district. The core legal questions concerned whether the District Magistrate could utilize Section 144 to restrict inter-provincial trade and whether the practice of issuing repetitive, successive orders to maintain this ban was legally permissible. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and set them aside. The Court established that Section 144 is a transitory provision intended for temporary emergencies and cannot be employed to permanently regulate trade or suppress private rights. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that inter-provincial trade is a federal subject protected by the Constitution, and the Magistrate’s actions constituted an unlawful interference. It was further held that goods in transit do not constitute "export" from a local area, and the repetitive issuance of orders to circumvent statutory time limits is legally impermissible. The Magistrate failed to demonstrate any genuine threat to public peace or tranquility justifying such restrictive measures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Magistrate use Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to permanently regulate trade or restrict inter-provincial movement of goods?
  • Does the repetitive issuance of orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to circumvent statutory time limits, constitute a valid exercise of power?
  • Do goods in transit through a district constitute 'export' from that district for the purposes of restrictive administrative orders?
  • Can a Provincial Government or District Magistrate restrict inter-provincial trade under the guise of maintaining public order when such trade is a federal subject?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1996 PLC 145 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ashiq, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq and others vs The State and others1996 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq And Others vs The State And Another1996 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Qari Naeemurrehman Tahir and others1996 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Qari Naeemurrehman Tahir And Other1996 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →