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.

• Muhammad Siddiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Superintendent District Jail, Multan, Etc.K.L.R 1997 Shariat Cases 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Niamat Ali And Another1995 MLD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Amjad And Other1995 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs MUHAMIvIAD Amjad and others1995 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Ghulam Ali1995 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30
  civil revisioncondonation of delaystriking off defenceremand of casesufficient causeunrefuted affidavitlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment setting aside a trial court's decree and remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The petitioner had filed a declaration suit regarding a mutation, in which the trial court struck off the respondent's defence and decreed the suit after the respondent failed to appear. The appellate court condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeal based on an unchallenged medical affidavit regarding the respondent's illness and remanded the matter. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in striking off the defence within a short timeframe when compared to the prolonged indulgences granted to the plaintiff, and noted that Order IX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not empower a court to strike off a defence in such circumstances. Furthermore, the High Court affirmed that the lower appellate court was fully justified in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 given that the medical affidavit and cause of delay went unrefuted by any counter-affidavit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the power under Order 9, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to strike off the defence of a defendant who fails to appear?
  • Whether the delay in filing an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the appellant's affidavit explaining sickness and supported by a medical certificate remains unrefuted by a counter-affidavit?
  • Is an appellate court justified in setting aside an ex parte or summary decree and remanding the suit for fresh decision when the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by prematurely closing the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 593 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-09
  triple murderdeath sentence commutationgrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubtocular evidencemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to five appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge for the triple murder of Mokha, his son Nazar Muhammad, and Mst. Saleh Bibi, and for the murderous assault on a minor. The appellants challenged the prosecution's evidence, alleging false implication due to enmity. The Lahore High Court examined the ocular evidence and the medical reports, noting discrepancies regarding the specific roles attributed to certain accused. Consequently, the court acquitted two appellants, Asghar and Zulfiqar, granting them the benefit of doubt. Regarding the remaining three appellants, the court upheld their convictions, finding the prosecution's case established. Crucially, the court addressed the quantum of sentence, ruling that the triple murder, while heinous, was committed under the influence of grave and sustained provocation stemming from the deceased's abduction of a married woman, which caused significant family disgrace. Applying established precedents, the court held that this mitigating circumstance justified commuting the death sentences to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that the penalty of death was not warranted in these specific circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abduction of a married woman and subsequent elopement constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence in a murder case?
  • Can an appellate court grant the benefit of doubt to specific co-accused when ocular testimony contains discrepancies regarding their individual roles?
  • Is the presence of an interested witness at the scene of the crime sufficient to discard their testimony if their presence is otherwise explained?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 6 Other vs Member Board of Revenu, Punjab And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 400 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheen Tariq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Secretary, Local Government Department and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Alias Kara vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq alias Kaka vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2013 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue and 2 others1995 CLC 966 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15
  consolidation of holdingsreview petitionres judicatafinality of judgmentland entitlementBoard of Revenuewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders by the Board of Revenue concerning land consolidation, specifically the readjustment of land holdings which resulted in a shortfall for the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a second review petition before the Board of Revenue and the legality of the Board's failure to address the petitioner's land entitlement grievance. The Court held that although the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, does not explicitly bar second review petitions, the principles of res judicata and the finality of judicial decisions preclude successive review applications on the same grounds, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court affirmed that an aggrieved party must raise all available grounds in a single review application. However, the Court set aside the impugned orders because the Board of Revenue failed to properly adjudicate the petitioner's valid claim regarding a shortfall in land entitlement during the first review process. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second review petition maintainable before the Board of Revenue under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive review applications before the Board of Revenue?
  • Can a court or tribunal correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in its orders despite the absence of a specific statutory provision for second reviews?
  • Is a failure to address a grievance regarding land entitlement in a review petition sufficient grounds to set aside an order of the Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Member (Cons) Board of Reveenue, PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Shadi Khan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Rent Controller1995 CLC 639 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31
  rent restrictionconstitutional petitioninterlocutory ordermaintainabilitydeposit of rentejectment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit rent pending the decision of an ejectment petition under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The primary legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller, specifically regarding the deposit of rent. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, reasoning that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature. The Court clarified that if the order were final, the appropriate remedy would have been an appeal, not a constitutional petition. Furthermore, relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust (PLD 1971 SC 700), the Court granted the petitioner a period of 14 days to deposit the rent due, noting that the previous suspension of the order had left 14 days remaining for compliance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the respondent undertaking not to withdraw the deposited rent until the jurisdictional objection was decided.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • If an order passed by a Rent Controller is final, what is the appropriate legal remedy for the aggrieved party?
  • Can a petitioner be granted additional time to deposit rent if the original order was suspended by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Election Tribunal and others1995 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 3 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and another1995 CLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi & Co. vs National Bank and others1995 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15
  banking tribunalspecial courtexclusive jurisdictionconsolidation of suitstransfer of suitbanking companies (recovery of loans)statutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the consolidation and transfer of two separate suits pending before different forums: a suit filed by a bank against a customer before a Banking Tribunal, and a cross-suit for damages filed by the customer against the bank before a Special Court. The petitioner argued that because both suits arose from the same transaction, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to consolidate them. The Court held that the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 and the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 establish forums with distinct, exclusive jurisdictions. The Court reasoned that the Banking Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits filed by customers, whereas the Special Court under the 1979 Ordinance has broader scope. Because these forums are creatures of statute with limited, exclusive jurisdiction, they cannot be equated with courts of general jurisdiction, and the High Court cannot consolidate proceedings across these distinct statutory regimes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the respective courts were directed to expedite the adjudication of their pending matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court consolidate a suit pending before a Banking Tribunal with a suit pending before a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a Banking Tribunal constituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a customer against a banking company?
  • Are the Banking Tribunal and the Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 courts of general jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar/ vs Ashiq Ali/1995 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsecond appealburden of proofstatutory demandsIslamic law of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This second civil appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption concerning agricultural land. The appellant (plaintiff) sought to pre-empt a sale on grounds of co-ownership, contiguity, and common user of a watercourse. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to prove the performance of the necessary Islamic legal demands (Talabs). The core legal question was whether the appellant had strictly complied with the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) and Talb-i-Ishhad (demand by establishing evidence) as mandated by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court held that the appellant failed to establish the precise time of knowledge of the sale, which is critical for Talb-i-Muwathibat, and failed to perform Talb-i-Ishhad 'as soon as possible' as required by Section 13 of the Act. The Court affirmed that these demands are fundamental to the right of pre-emption and that the burden of proof lies on the pre-emptor. Consequently, the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-observance of these statutory demands were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence of failing to perform the necessary Talabs in a suit for pre-emption?
  • Does the phrase 'as soon thereafter as possible' in Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 require the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad without delay?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the non-observance of Talabs open to challenge in a second appeal?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the pre-emptor to establish the precise time of knowledge of the sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12
  rash and negligent drivingroad accidentpost-mortem examinationcriminal appealacquittaluncorroborated ocular accountDiyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, convicting the appellant under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment with Diyat for causing the death of a cyclist by a tractor. The core legal questions involved whether rash or negligent driving was established beyond doubt and whether the failure to conduct a proper post-mortem examination was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the mere expression of high speed or a road accident is insufficient to prove rash or negligent driving without considering traffic conditions, road nature, and traffic rules violation, and that the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination leaves the cause of death unproven. The key principles laid down are that rashness or negligence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires concrete proof of excessive speed relative to traffic and road conditions, and that medical evidence through a post-mortem examination is essential to establish direct causation between the injury and death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere allegation of high speed or a road accident is sufficient to establish rash or negligent driving under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a post-mortem examination necessary to prove that an injury was the immediate and proximate cause of death in a culpable homicide case?
  • Does a failure to mention crucial physical evidence such as a bicycle and tractor in the site plan render the ocular account doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Ashiq AliK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Shakir vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1995 PLC 745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Shakir vs Punjab Road Transport Corp. EtcK.L.R. 1995 Labourr & Service Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 853 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Zeba Abdul Hameed and 2 others1995 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Zeba Abdul Hameed And 2 Other1995 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Pakistan Administrative Staff College and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs Abdul Hameed and 2 others1995 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Satti vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 661 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeedullah Khan vs Allah Diwaya and 8 others1995 CLC 683 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Excise & Taxation Officer, Sahiwal and 2 others1995 MLD 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Excise & Taxation Officer, Sahiwal And 2 Other1995 MLD 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Khanpur Subdivision1995 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Allah DittaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddval vs Aman UllahK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs The State1995 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabihul Qazi vs Vicechancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and others1995 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saai vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Sakina And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Headmaster. Government High School Chak No.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Services Cases 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Akhtar vs Sub-RegistrarK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 311 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs The State1995 MLD 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Naveed Akhtar alias Sahib and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Lahore Development Authority1995 CLC 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed and 14 others vs Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur through its Administrator and 5 others1995 CLC 622 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed and 12 others vs Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur and 5 others1995 CLC 363 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1995 PLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Station House Officer, Police Station1995 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High Court
  writ petitionpolice seizuresuperdariunlawful possessionillegal detention of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed seeking directions for the registration of a criminal case and the return of a Hino truck seized by the police. The petitioner claimed ownership of the truck, which was allegedly seized from outside his house by the police without any registered case or legal justification. The police contended that the vehicle was seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a complaint by a third party who claimed to have purchased it. The High Court observed that the police failed to report the seizure of the truck to a Magistrate as mandated by Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the statutory requirement to report a seizure forthwith is a condition precedent, and failure to do so renders the seizure illegal. Consequently, the Court declared the seizure unlawful and directed the police to return the truck to the petitioner from whose possession it was taken.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to report a seizure of property to a Magistrate under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the seizure illegal?
  • Can a Magistrate exercise jurisdiction to order the disposal or delivery of seized property if the police have not reported the seizure under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the police justified in seizing property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their own inquiry reveals that no cognizable offence has been committed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1995 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Butt alias Luboo Butt vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq And 2 Others vs Sabir Ali And 2 Other1995 MLD 178 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafio and 2 others vs Sabir Ali and 2 others1995 MLD 178 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and 3 others vs Mst. Nasira Sultana and 5 others1995 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02
  Civil RevisionEvacuee PropertyAgreement of AssociationSpecific ReliefPossessory RightsPleadingsLicensee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns a dispute over the possession of a house previously classified as evacuee property. The respondents, as legal heirs of the deceased, sought a declaration of their rights based on a 1970 agreement (Exh. P1) executed by the parties, which stipulated that the transferee of the property could not dispossess the other signatories, nor sell or rent the premises without mutual consent. Conversely, the petitioner, in whose name the property was subsequently transferred, filed a suit for possession, claiming the respondents were mere licensees. The trial court initially decreed the petitioner's suit, but the appellate court reversed this, upholding the respondents' claim. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that while the agreement might not constitute a formal agreement of association under settlement laws, it remained a valid, binding private contract. The Court emphasized that substance prevails over form in pleadings and that the transferee was contractually bound by the terms of the agreement, which effectively created perpetual rights of possession for the signatories.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private agreement regarding the occupation of property is binding on a transferee even if it fails to meet the formal requirements of an agreement of association under settlement laws?
  • Does a court have the authority to grant relief based on the substance of a plaint rather than its specific form?
  • Can a transferee of property be estopped from dispossessing other parties if a prior valid agreement prohibits such action?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Walidad and others1995 P Cr. L J 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Ibrahim And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 9 others1995 CLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Ghulam Haider and 24 others1995 MLD 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Ghulam Haider And 24 Other1995 MLD 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Baluch vs President of Govt. of Peshawar, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 684 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Other vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division And Other1995 KLR Revenue cases 71 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division1995 MLD 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And 4 Others vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division1995 MLD 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 362 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1995 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Zahida Parveen1995 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29
  ejectment petitionstriking off defenceRent ControllerPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959second appealdefault in rent paymentappellate authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment petition filed by a landlord against a tenant for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, the defence was struck off. The appellant contended that the Rent Controller's order was illegal due to procedural defects regarding the specified dates for rent deposits. The Court held that while an order under Section 13(6) must be clear, a defect in one part of the direction does not render the entire order a nullity. If an order contains multiple directions, the tenant remains obligated to comply with the valid portions, and failure to do so justifies striking off the defence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that appellate authorities possess the power to order rent deposits during the pendency of an appeal, and non-compliance warrants summary dismissal. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the Court's interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defect in one part of an order passed under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 render the entire order a nullity?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a valid direction for rent deposit if other parts of the same order are found to be defective?
  • Does an appellate authority have the power to order the deposit of rent during the pendency of an appeal under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • What are the essential requirements for a valid order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Zahida Par Veen1995 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs (Mst.) Zahida PerveenKX.R. 1995 Civil Cases 436 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and others vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1995 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Alias Muneera and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Qureshi Manager, Central Workshop (Gulberg)K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 154 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Khan vs M. Nasir and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Alias Mumtaz vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 451 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin And Others vs The State1995 MLD 656 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehmood Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehboob and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor vs S.H.O. & Mehr Riaz Hussain, ASIK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 409 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha and 2 others vs University of the Punjab through Vice Chancellor, Lahore and 3 others1995 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15
  syllabus changeexamination patternacademic councilboard of studieswrit petitioneducational institutionuniversity powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the new syllabus and pattern of the English paper for the B.A. examinations introduced by the University of the Punjab. The petitioners contended that the changes were made without prior intimation, lacked approval of the competent authority, and caused hardship. The respondent University refuted the allegations, demonstrating that the syllabus and exam pattern were finalized in 1993, duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor under section 15 of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, and later ratified with post facto approval by the Academic Council, complying with section 28 of the Act. The court held that the University and its organs possess the inherent authority and statutory power to prescribe and modify syllabi and examination formats. Finding no legal infirmity or mala fides, the court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that the competent academic authorities have the discretion to regulate academic standards and examination formats.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the University of the Punjab has the legal authority to alter the syllabus and examination pattern for degree classes under the University of Punjab Act, 1973?
  • Can the Academic Council grant post facto approval to changes in the syllabus and examination pattern introduced by the University?
  • Does a change in the format of a question paper by the University warrant interference by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha And 2 Other vs The Station House Officer, PoliceK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 633 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →