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.

• Ashfaq Ijaz vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Services Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Asghar Beg vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Shah vs Saeed Ahmad Ashraf and another1996 P Cr. L J 1673 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Arif and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Anwar Kabir Sheikh, Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Indus_2247787d(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 46) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Kabir Sheikh, Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Indus_2197399e1996 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Mansha and another1996 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Anil Mussarat Hussain vs Muhammad Anwar Naseem and 2 others1996 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14
  dissolution of marriagejurisdictionforeign citizenfamily courtrejection of plaintconflict of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by a Pakistani citizen (respondent No. 3) against a United Kingdom citizen (the petitioner). The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 does not apply to non-citizens. The Family Court and the revisional court rejected this contention. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 contains no provision restricting its applicability solely to citizens of Pakistan. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court precedent in Masood Ahmad Malik's case, noting that while the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is restricted to Pakistani citizens, the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 is an independent enactment operating in a different field. Since the plaintiff was a Pakistani citizen and the marriage was solemnized in Lahore, the Family Court possessed valid jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 restrict its applicability only to citizens of Pakistan?
  • Does the citizenship restriction in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 apply to all proceedings under the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can a Family Court in Pakistan entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage where the plaintiff is a Pakistani citizen, the marriage was solemnized in Pakistan, but the defendant is a foreign citizen?
  • Is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable after an issue regarding jurisdiction has already been framed in the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Latif vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 80) · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Amjad Latif vs C.B.R and others1996 CLC 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19
  constitutional petitionservice matterviva voceselection committeesubjective assessmentinitial recruitmentjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging the selection process for the posts of Inspectors in BPS-11 initiated by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal questions involved the validity of entertaining certain candidates whose applications were allegedly received after the deadline, the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan in matters concerning initial recruitment, and the legality of reserving an unusually high percentage of marks (33.3%) for viva voce, which allegedly enabled the Selection Committee to manipulate merit through subjective assessment. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable because the dispute pertained to the pre-selection procedure rather than the terms and conditions of service. The court upheld the written test results and the eligibility of the candidates who took the test but struck down the merit list based on the viva voce. The court laid down the principle that reserving an excessively high proportion of marks for interview without structured sub-criteria or recorded reasons leads to arbitrariness and subjectivity, which vitiates the selection process, and directed a fresh viva voce to be conducted transparently.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of challenges to the pre-selection procedure for public posts?
  • Can a candidate's participation and qualification in a written test cure an alleged defect in the untimely submission of their initial application form?
  • Whether the reservation of 33.3 percent marks for viva voce in public employment selections renders the process vulnerable to arbitrariness and subjective assessment?
  • Is a merit list prepared through viva voce sustainable when the Selection Committee fails to record reasons or apportion marks based on academic qualifications and written test performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf ShaguftaK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 492 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Amjad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf Shagufta and another1996 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Khokhar vs Mst. Nargis Khatoon1996 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14
  benami transactiondeclaration of ownershipburden of proofcivil revisionjudgment of variancesale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of variance that dismissed the petitioner's suit for a declaration that he is the real owner of a plot purchased in the name of the respondent, claiming the transaction was 'benami'. The core legal question revolved around whether the purchase of the property in the respondent's name constituted a benami transaction or if she was the genuine owner with her own funds. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the benami nature of the transaction, noting that the respondent possessed independent financial capacity, provided a plausible explanation for the registration process, and that the original title deed's custody and company mortgage circumstances did not prove ownership by the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that a registered sale deed carries a rebuttable presumption of ownership in favor of the named purchaser, and a benami claim requires cogent, convincing proof of the source of funds and intention, which cannot be sustained on weak or flimsy explanations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered sale deed in the name of a respondent creates a rebuttable presumption of real ownership?
  • Can a benami transaction be established solely on the ground that a male family member or friend paid the balance consideration before the Sub-Registrar?
  • Does the appellate court's judgment of variance warrant interference in civil revision when based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Alias Shami vs The State1996 MLD 1351 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Amin Textile Mills Limited, Sheikhupura vs Punjab Employees' Social1996 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-28
  social security contributionwages definitionspecial allowancefederal vs provincial lawconstitutional adaptationstatutory interpretationalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of writ petitions challenged notices issued by the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution demanding social security contributions calculated on the 'Special Allowance' paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988. The core legal question was whether this statutory allowance constitutes 'wages' under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby subjecting it to contribution requirements. The petitioners argued that the 1988 Act explicitly excluded the allowance from wages for 'any other law.' The Court held that the 1965 Ordinance, having been converted into a Federal Law through constitutional adaptation, prevails over the Provincial 1988 Act regarding inconsistencies. Furthermore, the Court determined that the definition of 'wages' in the 1965 Ordinance is exhaustive and does not exclude the Special Allowance. The principle laid down is that statutory allowances granted as a matter of right constitute remuneration, and unless explicitly excluded by the 1965 Ordinance itself, they form part of the wage base for social security contributions. Factual disputes regarding calculation must be pursued through statutory remedies under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Special Allowance payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988 constitute 'wages' for the purpose of calculating social security contributions under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 considered a Federal Law following constitutional adaptations?
  • Can a Provincial Act override the provisions of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 regarding the definition of wages?
  • Are the remedies provided under sections 57 and 58 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 considered adequate and efficacious for disputing contribution amounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ameenuddin and 3 others vs The State1995 MLD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Baig vs Land Acquisition Collector, Scarp, Construction1996 CLC 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• Altaf Construction Company vs Central Board of Revenue and others1996 PTD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21
  contractor income taxenhanced tax rateretrospective operationFinance Actconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  M/s. Altaf Construction Company filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenging the deduction of income-tax at the enhanced rate of 5% pursuant to the Finance Act, 1995 and a notification dated 1-7-1995, in respect of contracts awarded and initiated prior to 1-7-1995. The petitioner contended that applying the enhanced rate to prior contracts amounted to giving retrospective operation to the amendment. The core legal question was whether income-tax on payments made to contractors on or after 1-7-1995 under earlier contracts is leviable at the new enhanced rate of 5% or the former rate of 3%. The court held that the enhanced tax rate applies to all amounts received or collected on or after 1-7-1995, regardless of when the underlying contract or agreement was executed, because income tax is assessed on the basis of the financial year in which the taxable income is collected rather than the date of the agreement. The court established that the levy is prospective as it applies to payments received after the enforcement date, dismissing the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enhancement of income-tax rate on contractors through the Finance Act applies prospectively to payments received after the effective date regardless of the date of the underlying contract?
  • Does the deduction of income-tax at an enhanced rate on amounts received after the enforcement date of a taxing statute constitute retrospective taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 702 · Lahore High Court
  grievance petitionindustrial relationsdismissal from servicecompetency of appealprocedural irregularitybank employeetermination of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four consolidated Constitutional petitions arising from a dispute between Allied Bank and two employees regarding their dismissal and termination. The primary legal questions concerned the competency of the bank's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the maintainability of a grievance petition by a dismissed employee. The Court held that procedural irregularities in the presentation or signing of a memorandum of appeal are curable defects and do not render an appeal incompetent. Regarding the grievance petition, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, ruled that a dismissed employee cannot maintain a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On merits, the Court affirmed that an employer possesses the discretion to terminate services under applicable service rules rather than pursuing a formal dismissal for misconduct, provided the rules allow such an option. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Appellate Tribunal's orders, declaring the grievance petitions non-maintainable and upholding the employer's disciplinary actions against the employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of procedural defects in the signing or presentation of the memorandum of appeal?
  • Does a dismissed employee have the legal standing to maintain a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employer legally permitted to terminate an employee's services under service rules instead of pursuing a formal dismissal for misconduct?
  • Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal have the authority to decide a case on merits after dismissing an appeal as incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin vs Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 119) · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 288 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya and others vs Allah Diwaya and others1996 CLC 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-26
  pre-emptiondischarge of decreeadjustment of decreecivil decreeexchange of landsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land where parties had originally exchanged land, subsequently litigated, obtained a declaratory decree, and then entered into a private agreement to abide by the original exchange, leading to a subsequent sale of land. The core legal question was whether a court decree could be adjusted or discharged by the parties out of court without the intervention of the court, and whether such an agreement effectively restored the parties to their pre-litigation status regarding land ownership. The Lahore High Court held that parties are legally competent to adjust or discharge their rights and liabilities under a decree through a private agreement or instrument of discharge, thereby extinguishing or satisfying the decree. The court laid down the principle that a decree-holder can discharge a judgment-debtor from obligations under a decree, and an agreement acting as a discharge of liability is valid and wider in effect than a mere adjustment, effectively relegating the parties to their original positions and rendering subsequent transactions valid accordingly. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court decree be adjusted or discharged by the parties without the intervention of the court?
  • Whether an oral or written agreement between parties can operate to discharge obligations under a judicial decree?
  • Does a pre-emptor have a superior right of pre-emption over land other than the actual subject-matter of the sale-deed?
  • What is the distinction between the adjustment and the discharge of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 628 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Bashir Ahmed1996 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge and others1996 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge And Other1996 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta By Legal Heirs vs Abdul Aziz And 2 Other1996 MLD 697 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta alias Dittu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mst. Noor Bhari and others1996 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and anothers vs Muhammad Shaft1996 MLD 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And Another vs Muhammad Shafi1996 MLD 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Aljihad Trust and others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and others1996 MLD 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Station House Officer, Ahmadpur Lamma, District1996 MLD 169 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Sadaqat Begum and anothers1996 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Sadaqat Begum And Another1996 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways1996 PLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher vs S.H.O., Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Al-Qadir Chemical Soap Factory, Etc. vs M/s. Azhar Corporation, Etc.1996 P.C.T.L.R.1545 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Al Jihad Trust And Others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo And Other1996 MLD 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain, Food Grains Inspector District Food Controller, Sahiwal and another vs Member-I, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Lahore Bench, Lahore and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 810 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Sub-Division, Kasur and 9 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 943 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29
  public employmentmerit-based appointmentpolitical interferencePatwari recruitmentconstitutional petitionrule of lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order dismissing a constitutional petition against the appointment of several Patwaris. The appellant, a qualified candidate, argued that the appointments were made in violation of established procedures, specifically alleging that the selection process was bypassed in favor of political recommendations from Members of the Provincial and National Assemblies. The core legal question was whether public appointments made solely on political recommendations, rather than through a merit-based selection process as prescribed by law, are legally sustainable. The Court held that the appointments were unlawful, noting that the recruitment process was a mere ritual and that politicians lacked the authority to direct appointments. The Court emphasized that while public employment may not be a fundamental right in the same sense as in other jurisdictions, the rule of law requires that appointments be made strictly on merit, following prescribed rules and open competition. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appointments, declaring them without legal authority, and directed the Collector to initiate a fresh, merit-based selection process in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can public appointments be made based on the recommendations of political representatives rather than through prescribed merit-based procedures?
  • Does a candidate for public service have a right to challenge an appointment process that fails to follow statutory requirements?
  • Are government instructions regarding the criteria for initial recruitment considered part of the governing statute?
  • Does the allocation of public service posts to political figures violate the principle of equality in public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Food Grains Inspector And Another vs Member-IK.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 93 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Abbas and another vs Assistant Commissioner_Administrator, Municipal Committee, Pattoki and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 429 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1996 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Jamal vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Javed Shah vs Lahore Development Authority1996 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ashraf vs University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1996 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ashraf vs University of the Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other,1996 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-01Read full judgment →
• Agrics Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore vs F.L.C. and others1996 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Agrics Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore vs F.L.C. And Other1996 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Aftab A. Chaudhry, Chairman, Managing Committee, the Punjab Club, Lahore vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another1996 PLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
• Administrator General of Auqaf and another vs The District Judge1996 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Adalat Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 637 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sabore vs Abdul Aziz1996 CLC 867 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Divisional Engineer Telephone, Misri Shah Exchange, Lahore and another1996 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq Patwari vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub-1996 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Case604 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and others vs Banking Tribunal1996 CLC 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Vakil Malik vs Ashfaq Ahmad QureshiK.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral CF Police, Dera Ghazi Khan1996 P Cr. L J 2034 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and anothers vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) Special Court No.IV, Lahore and anothers1996 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists1996 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs Special Judge (Suppression Of TerroristK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 3 others vs Ahmad Shah and 7 others1996 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And 3 Others vs Ahmad Shah And 7 Other1996 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Niaz Khan and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23
  bail cancellationcross-versionfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitydiscretionary order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner/complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the grounds of vicarious liability and alleged misreading of the record, particularly in the context of a cross-version case. The Lahore High Court held that the existence of a cross-version brings the matter into the realm of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it is difficult to determine the aggressor at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court held that a discretionary bail order passed by a trial court will not be interfered with unless it is proved to be perverse, capricious, or that the accused has misused the concession of bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of a cross-version makes a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail granted by a trial court be cancelled without establishing that the order was perverse or that the accused misused the concession of bail?
  • Does general and unspecific injury attribution warrant the cancellation of bail on the basis of vicarious liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Afzal and others1996 P Cr. L J 253 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The State1996 MLD 907 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khokhar vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Communication & Works Department, Lahore(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Gases 144) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila1996 CLC 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Muhammad Mohyuddin Siddique and others1996 CLC 227 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03
  HibaAriatMuslim LawLife interestGift of corpusHanafi LawRevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the nature of a gift of agricultural land made by the predecessor-in-interest to his wife. The core legal question was whether the transaction constituted a gift of the corpus of the property or merely a transfer of usufruct for life, and whether the condition of life interest was valid under Muslim Law. The Court held that the donor had transferred the corpus of the property, not merely the usufruct. Consequently, the condition attempting to limit the gift to a life interest was void under the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. The Court affirmed that under Muslim Law, a gift (Hiba) of the corpus of property is absolute. If a donor attempts to attach a condition limiting the gift to a life interest, the condition is void, but the gift itself remains valid and absolute. The distinction between Hiba (gift of corpus) and Ariat (transfer of usufruct) is critical, and courts must determine the donor's intention from the language used in the transaction. The revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a condition of life interest attached to a gift of the corpus of property valid under Hanafi Law?
  • What is the legal distinction between Hiba and Ariat under Muslim Law?
  • Does a gift of the corpus of property remain valid if the condition attached to it is found to be void?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Haqoa vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 817 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1996 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and anothers vs Fauzia Durrani1996 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and another vs Judge, Special Court No.1 (Pb.) for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and another1996 P Cr. L J 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar And Another vs Fauzia Durrani1996 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Hassan1996 CLC 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Deceased Rep By Lhrs. vs Muhammad Hassan(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 138) · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem and 7 others vs Habibullah1996 CLC 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• (M/s.)Farooq Interprises vs The Commissioner of Income Tax and1996 P.C.T.L.R. 864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Sheikh Spining Mills Ltd. And Other vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Sante International (Pvt) Limited And Another vs The1996 P.C.T.L.R. 482 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Chanab Creaseent Products vs Banking Tribunal1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Zeenat Begum And Another vs The Chairman, Federal LandK.L.R. 4996 Revenue Cases 157 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Rubia Jilani vs Raja Zahoor AkhtarK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 421 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nazir Begum vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →