Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.
- Mst. Shanaz Begum and 4 others vs Ashiq Hussain Bhatti and 2 others1995 CLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others filed a suit for recovery of damages arising from a fatal accident. During the proceedings, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' applications to summon the Secretary, R.T.A. as a witness along with relevant documents, on the grounds that his name was not included in the list of witnesses and that a second application was barred due to the dismissal of the first. The Lahore High Court accepted the civil revision petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court held that procedural rules are designed to advance the cause of justice rather than entrap litigants on technicalities, and that the omission of a witness's name from the list does not bar the court's jurisdiction to summon a crucial official witness for a just decision. Furthermore, the Court clarified that principles of res judicata do not apply to interlocutory applications for summoning witnesses or producing additional evidence at subsequent stages of a suit.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a witness's name from the list of witnesses absolutely bar the trial court from summoning an important official witness?
- Are principles of res judicata applicable to successive interlocutory applications for summoning witnesses or producing additional evidence?
- Can a court direct the examination of a witness at any stage of the suit under Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Mian Abdul Latif, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 224 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahida Parveen vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Shahida Parveen, who had already been granted bail by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but was refused release by the Superintendent of Jail because the jail remand record additionally mentioned section 10 of the Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the legality of jail authorities withholding the release of an accused on hyper-technical discrepancies regarding penal sections mentioned in the jail record despite a clear court order granting bail in respect of the F.I.R. in its entirety. The Court held that once a court grants bail in an F.I.R., the order pertains to the F.I.R. in its entirety, and the specification of penal provisions in investigation papers does not control the substance of the F.I.R. The Court laid down the principle that continued detention by jail authorities after a bail order amounts to illegal detention, placing the accused in the custodia legis of the Court.
Questions settled- Whether jail authorities can refuse to release an accused granted bail by a court on the ground that the jail remand record mentions additional penal sections?
- Does an order granting bail in a particular F.I.R. pertain to that F.I.R. in its entirety?
- What is the legal status of an accused person's detention once they are admitted to bail by a court?
- Mst. Shaheen Bibi (Nusrat Shaheen) vs Zulfiqar Ali Shah Kazmi and 21995 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the mother challenging the concurrent orders of the Family Court and the appellate court whereby the custody of her minor daughter was granted to the father and paternal grandmother under the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in awarding custody and whether the mother's remarriage to a stranger extinguished her right of hizanat. The Lahore High Court held that the mother, by contracting a marriage with a person not related to the minor within the prohibited degree, forfeited her right of custody under Muhammadan Law, and that the welfare of the minor dictated that custody remain with the father and paternal grandmother. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that a plea not raised before the lower forums cannot be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, and that a petition involving child custody is hit by the doctrine of laches if filed with an inordinate delay of over eight months without prompt recourse.
Questions settled- Does the remarriage of a mother to a stranger extinguish her right to the custody of her minor daughter under Muhammadan Law?
- Can a plea or objection that was not raised before the lower forums be allowed to be raised for the first time in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Is a constitutional petition relating to the custody of a minor liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches if filed after an inordinate delay without prompt recourse?
- Who is entitled to the custody of a female minor when the mother has contracted a marriage with a stranger not within the prohibited degree?
- Mst. Shagufta Jabeen vs Deputy District Education Officer (Women), Bhakkar and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 451 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sara Bibi and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District Jhang and another1995 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Samina Ali vs Station House Officer1995 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saleha Ibtisam vs Chairman, Admission Committee, Pakistan King1995 CLC 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saleem Akhtar vs Nur Muahmmad Khan and others1995 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Muhammad Hussain and others1995 P Cr. L J 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Bibi vs Muhammad Arif, A.S.I. and 3 others1997 MLD 158 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ruqayya Bibi and another vs The S.H.O., Police Station Bhai Pheru1995 P Cr. L J 978 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Noor and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1995 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Noor And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad And Other1995 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Malik Farzand Ali and others1995 CLC 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Station House Officer, Gunjial, Tehsil and District1995 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, wherein the petitioner, an adult female, was alleged to have been abducted by the accused for the purpose of committing Zina. The core legal question before the court was whether an F.I.R. regarding abduction and Zina can be quashed when the alleged victim is sui juris, has contracted a valid marriage of her own free will, and the police investigation found the case to be false. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner is sui juris, attained puberty, and contracted a valid marriage according to Islamic law and her own free will, the continued investigation and prosecution constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court laid down the principle that marriage under Muslim law is a civil contract for which a competent adult does not require parental consent, and the state has a constitutional duty to protect such marriages; furthermore, police inquiries and investigations are subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if found to be mala fide or violative of fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Can an F.I.R. under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be quashed when the alleged victim is sui juris and has contracted a free-will marriage?
- Whether a Muslim adult of sound mind who has attained puberty can enter into a contract of marriage without parental consent?
- Are police investigations and inquiries amenable to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a marriage contracted without the consent of parents constitute a criminal offence under Pakistani law?
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Nazir Ahmed and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum vs District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1995 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against respondent No. 3 on grounds including habitual cruelty and Khula, which was dismissed by the Family Court and subsequently upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Jhang. The petitioner then approached the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula despite evidence showing deep-seated hatred and the impossibility of the spouses living within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that where the wife remains adamant in her refusal to live with her husband, the husband resides abroad in Kuwait visiting only occasionally, there are no children, and forcing the union would result in a hateful marriage, dissolution on the basis of Khula must be granted. The key principle laid down is that refusing Khula in circumstances where reconciliation is impossible and parties would be forced into a hateful union runs contrary to established superior court rulings and norms of justice.
Questions settled- Whether a wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula when she remains adamant in her refusal to live with her husband and reconciliation is impossible?
- Does forcing spouses to remain in a hateful union where reconciliation has failed violate norms of justice?
- Whether the failure of a husband residing abroad to appear as his own witness is a relevant feature in determining a suit for dissolution of marriage?
- Mst. Zaibun Nisar vs Slkandar And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1995 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for jactitation of marriage and decreeing the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether a civil court, adjudicating a suit for jactitation of marriage, can determine the validity and genuineness of a Nikahnama based primarily on findings recorded in a previous criminal court judgment rather than independent civil evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a civil court is a court of plenary jurisdiction and must independently evaluate the evidence led before it, rather than relying on a criminal acquittal judgment to establish the factum of marriage. The High Court laid down the principle that relying on criminal court findings to prove a Nikah in civil proceedings is illegal and perverse, and that writ jurisdiction may be exercised to set aside judgments that suffer from such material irregularities and non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a civil court adjudicating a suit for jactitation of marriage rely on a criminal court judgment to prove the validity of a Nikah?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction when the lower courts have misdirected themselves or rendered a perverse judgment?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove the factum of a Nikah in civil proceedings?
- Mst. Nighat Naz vs Government of Punjab, Lahore through Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, Lahore and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Niaz Begum and others vs Waris Khan and others1995 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Niaz Begum And Others vs Waris Khan And Other1995 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazir vs Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan and 2 others1995 CLC 296 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Syed Shafqat Ahmed and anothers1997 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 2 others vs Mst. Shaheen Kausar and another1995 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Bibi vs The State1995 MLD 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Muzammel S. Shafqat vs Muhammad Farooq and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs (Mst.) Wazir BegumK.L.R.1997 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehrai and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1995 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehrai And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1995 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzooran Bibi vs The Superintendent of Police, Pakpattan Sharif1995 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mansab Mai vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan with the Powers of Controlling Authority And, Other1995 MLD 865 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Mansab Mai vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan with the Powers of Controlling Authority and others1995 MLD 865 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Mangti vs Mst. Noori and others1995 CLC 210 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves four consolidated second regular appeals concerning the inheritance of agricultural land left by Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Bheek. The core legal question was whether Mst. Kariman and Mst. Rahiman were the sisters of Sodagar, the father of the original right-holders, thereby establishing the respondents as legal heirs entitled to the estate. Additionally, the Court addressed the admissibility of foreign mutation documents as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the respondents were the rightful heirs, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It ruled that while appellate courts may admit additional evidence to advance justice, foreign documents must strictly comply with Article 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Court further established that opinion evidence regarding family relationships is admissible under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, when witnesses possess special means of knowledge. Finally, it clarified that mutation entries not incorporated in the Jamabandi lack a presumption of truth and must be evaluated alongside other evidence, ultimately dismissing the appeals.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill gaps in the trial record?
- What are the requirements for proving a foreign document under Article 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Do mutation entries not incorporated in the Jamabandi carry a presumption of truth?
- Under what conditions is opinion evidence regarding family relationships admissible under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Mst. Khurshid Bibi and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Parveen and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima, Etc. vs The State, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 335 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima vs S.H.O., Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore and 21995 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima vs S.H.O. Police Station Mughalpura, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 208 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima And Another vs Hasan Mahmood And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima and 3 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 65 dated 12-2-1995 registered under Sections 451 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Chunian, District Kasur. The core legal question concerns the competency of the High Court to quash a criminal case and interfere with police investigation at an interlocutory stage when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature and stems from matrimonial litigation. The Court held that where an F.I.R. is mala fide, intended to harass a family, and the allegations even if accepted do not constitute a criminal offence, the High Court is fully competent to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings arising out of a malafide conversion of a matrimonial and civil dispute into a criminal case to harass litigants will be quashed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is competent to quash criminal proceedings and interfere in an investigation at an interlocutory stage?
- Can a purely family or civil dispute be permitted to continue as a criminal prosecution when allegations fail to constitute an offence?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 or Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR that is motivated by mala fides and intended to harass citizens?
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs The State1995 MLD 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janat Bibi vs Mst. Bhagan and others1995 MLD 110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janat Bibi vs Mst. Bhagan And Other1995 MLD 110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Abdul Ghaffar and others1995 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition addresses the question of whether respondent No. 1, Abdul Ghaffar, had sold his entire share in a residential house to the petitioner, Mst. Iqbal Begum, by means of a registered sale-deed dated 27th July 1982, thereby losing his locus standi to file a partition suit. The lower courts had held that he only sold a portion of his share and remained a co-sharer entitled to partition. The Lahore High Court examined the well-settled principles of construction of documents, emphasizing that the whole context and plain language of an instrument must be considered to determine the intention of the parties, and clear words in the operative part cannot be controlled by recitals. The Court found that the operative part of the sale-deed unequivocally showed the transfer of the entire share ('Salem Hissa'). Consequently, the High Court held that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be an owner and lacked locus standi to institute the partition suit. The revision petition was accepted, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside.
Questions settled- How should a registered sale-deed be construed when determining the extent of property transferred?
- Can clear and unequivocal words in the operative part of an instrument be controlled by its recitals?
- Does a co-sharer who has sold his entire share in a property retain the locus standi to file a suit for partition?
- What are the well-settled principles governing the construction and interpretation of legal documents and contracts?
- Mst. Imtiaz Begum vs Tariq Mahmood and another1995 CLC 800 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order granting custody of a minor son to his father solely based on the child attaining the age of seven years. The core legal question was whether the 'age of seven' rule for male children is an absolute Islamic injunction or a flexible principle subject to the welfare of the minor and contemporary circumstances. The Court held that while Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) provides guidance on custody (Hizanat), the attainment of a specific age like seven or nine years is not an absolute, rigid requirement of Shariah. Instead, the primary consideration is the welfare of the minor, the child's readiness for education, and the parents' respective capabilities to provide a stable, moral, and supportive environment. The Court affirmed that custody decisions must be dynamic, reflecting the needs of the time, and that the father’s role in providing sustenance and education becomes pivotal as the child matures. The petition was dismissed as the lower court's decision was found to be supported by the father's superior financial capacity and ability to provide for the child's upbringing.
Questions settled- Is the attainment of seven years of age by a male child an absolute, rigid requirement under Islamic law for transferring custody to the father?
- Does the right of Hizanat (custody) vest in the mother or the father during the period of Rizaat (suckling)?
- Can a mother's right to custody be forfeited if she remarries a stranger to the minor?
- Does the court have the authority to determine custody based on the child's readiness for formal education rather than a fixed chronological age?
- Mst. Iffat Naheed and another vs The District Education Officer1995 PLC (C.S.) 199 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hurmat Bibi and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 56 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hifsa Malik vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 46 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hanifan Begum and others vs I.A.R. Coop. and others1995 CLC 646 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajani Khudeja Bibi through her Legal Heirs vs Hafiz Nawazish Ali1995 MLD 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajani Khudeja Bib1 Through Her Legal Heirs vs Hafiz Nawazish Ali1995 MLD 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hafeezan Bibi vs District Judge, Narowal and 2 others1995 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hafeezan Bibi vs District Judge, Narowal And 2 Other1995 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Goulbakhor vs Sohail ButtK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs S.H.O. etc.s1995 P Cr. L J 43 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima And 5 Others vs S.H.O., Police Station Karianwala, District Gujrat And Another1995 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fouzia Durrani vs Ghulam Rasool1995 CLC 2006 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fazlan Mai vs S.H.O. and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bibi And 3 Others vs Mst. Rashidan Bibi1995 MLD 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farida Begum vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1995 CLC 440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farah Naz vs Mst. Farah NazK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farah Naz vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan through its Chairman and another1995 CLC 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fajri vs The State1997 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Faiz Noor vs Dilawar Hussain and others1995 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Family Court, Lahore, which set aside an ex parte decree for maintenance allowance in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Family Court acted lawfully in denying the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent regarding his application to set aside the ex parte decree, particularly when the petitioner had produced evidence of service. The High Court held that the Family Court erred by failing to provide this essential opportunity for cross-examination, which prevented a judicious adjudication of the matter. The Court emphasized that while the Family Court has discretion in procedural matters, it is under a duty to ensure fairness, especially when determining whether to set aside an ex parte decree. Relying on the provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case, directing the trial court to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent's evidence before deciding the application afresh to ensure the interests of justice are served.
Questions settled- Does the Family Court have a duty to allow cross-examination of a witness supporting an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Can a Family Court permit the calling of witnesses at a later stage if it is considered expedient in the interest of justice?
- Is an order denying the opportunity for cross-examination in a Family Court proceeding subject to constitutional review?
- Mst. Faiz Begum vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dharan Bibi and others vs Khushi Muhammad and others1995 MLD 290 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dharan Bibi And Others vs Khushi Muhammad And Other1995 MLD 290 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Bibi vs S.H.O.1995 P Cr. L J 401 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Bushra Bibi filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 650 of 1994 registered under Section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Saddar, Jhang, on the complaint of her mother. The core legal question revolved around whether the FIR could be quashed when the petitioner claimed to be sui juris and lawfully married to her co-accused husband, while the complainant alleged minority and abduction for zina. The Lahore High Court held that medical and radiological evidence established the petitioner's age to be between 15 and 16-16.5 years at the time of marriage, which suffices for puberty under Muhammadan Law, and that continuation of proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment with no prospect of conviction. The petition was accordingly allowed and the FIR quashed, laying down that constitutional petitions under Article 199 are competent against criminal investigations that encroach upon fundamental rights or are motivated by mala fides, and that radiological age assessments are to be preferred over conflicting school certificates.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be maintained against a criminal investigation or FIR?
- Whether radiological evidence regarding age is to be preferred over a school leaving certificate and birth certificate?
- Does the continuation of criminal proceedings under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 amount to harassment when evidence shows a valid marriage and age of puberty?
- What is the evidentiary value of radiological reports versus school certificates in determining the age of an accused in Pakistan?
- Mst. Bilquees Parveen vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 3 others1995 MLD 722 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilquees Parveen vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur And 3 Other1995 MLD 722 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Batool Bibi vs Muhammad Hayat and another1995 CLC 724 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a family dispute where the petitioner wife sought a decree for jactitation of marriage, claiming she was divorced orally by her first husband, respondent No. 1, and subsequently contracted a valid second marriage. The Family Court decreed the suit in her favour, but the Additional District Judge reversed the decision on appeal, holding the divorce ineffective for want of notice under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence and held that the oral divorce stood duly proved by reliable eyewitness testimony. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that failure to send a notice of talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 does not render a divorce ineffective in Shariah. Furthermore, the High Court emphasized that the law leans in favour of the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of an innocent child. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside as being without lawful authority, and the judgment of the Family Court was restored.
Questions settled- Does the failure to send a notice of talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 render a divorce ineffective in Shariah?
- Whether an oral divorce can be proved through the testimony of witnesses in a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Does the law lean in favour of the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children in matrimonial disputes?
- Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Muhammad Kashif Khan and others1995 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from concurrent decisions of the lower courts rejecting a pre-emption plaint on the grounds of limitation and the absence of averments regarding Zaroorat (necessity) or avoidance of Zarar (harm). The core legal question concerned the applicable limitation period during the legislative vacuum between August 1986 and March 1990 following the declaration of un-Islamic provisions in the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and whether pleading Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar was mandatory in a pre-emption plaint. The Lahore High Court held that while the suit was within time under section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 (which applied prospectively until struck down on December 31, 1993), the plaint was fatally defective for failing to plead Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar. The key principle laid down is that pleading the existence of Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar is a mandatory requirement for exercising the Islamic right of pre-emption, without which a plaint is materially defective and cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether the omission to plead Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar in a pre-emption plaint is fatal to the suit?
- What limitation period governs pre-emption suits instituted during the legislative vacuum between August 1986 and March 1990 in Punjab?
- Can evidence be led on matters of Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar if they are not expressly pleaded in the pre-emption plaint?
- Whether section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 applied prospectively prior to being struck down as repugnant to Islam?
- Mst. Bashir Begum vs Syed Ijaz Hussain1995 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller, which closed the petitioners' evidence in an ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners, who claimed possession under an agreement of sale rather than as tenants, sought an adjournment due to a witness's illness, which the Rent Controller refused, leading to the closure of their evidence. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a Constitutional petition was competent against such an interlocutory order. The Court, following a Division Bench precedent, held that a writ petition does not lie against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller, especially when it does not cause tangible damage and the validity of such an order can be challenged in an appeal against a final ejectment order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Can a Constitutional petition be filed against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller?
- Does an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller that closes evidence cause tangible damage to a party?
- Can the validity of an interlocutory order be challenged in an appeal against a final ejectment order?
- Is a writ petition competent against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller if it does not cause tangible damage?
- Mst. Balqees Begum and 11 others vs Mehfooz Hussain and 9 others1995 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which dismissed their suit regarding land allotment. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners could deviate from their pleadings regarding the date of allotment, whether an admission contrary to the record was binding, and whether the disputed land was lawfully allotted to their predecessor-in-interest as a Jammu and Kashmir refugee prior to confirmation in favor of the respondents' predecessor. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, holding that a party cannot be allowed to set up a new case or deviate from the specific pleadings and date of allotment stated in the plaint. The Court laid down the principle that self-serving claims in review applications do not constitute proof of allotment, and pleadings restrict parties from introducing unpleaded factual stances at the appellate or revisional stage.
Questions settled- Can a party be permitted to set up a new case or deviate from the specific date of allotment pleaded in the plaint?
- Does a self-serving statement in a review application constitute substantive evidence of land allotment?
- Whether an appellate court rightly rejects an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to incorporate the relief of possession when the foundational claim of allotment fails?
- Mst. Bakhat Shada and anothers vs Mansab Dar1995 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azmat Mai vs Tanvir Iqbal and 2 others1995 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azmat Mai vs Tanvir Iqbal And 2 Other1995 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Bibi vs Karam Din and others1995 MLD 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Bibi vs Karam Din And Other1995 MLD 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azeem Khatoon and others vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1995 MLD 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azeem Khatoon And Others vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1995 MLD 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asia Iqbal vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur through Chairman and another1995 CLC 341 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anwar Bibi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amira Bokhari vs Faqir Syed Jameelud Din Bokhari and 2 others1995 MLD 34 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amira Bokhari vs Faqir Syed Jameelud Din Bokhari And 2 Other1995 MLD 34 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amir Begum vs Manzoor AhmadK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akhtar Parveen vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mrs.) Shamim Rizwan vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 575 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Zeb Mazhar Ali Bhatti vs Government of Punjab through Department of Education, Lahore and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tehmina Bashir vs Abdul Rauf and another1995 CLC 973 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the acquittal of a surety in criminal proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 (referred to as Banking Tribunal Ordinance 1984 in the text). The petitioner, having provided an equitable mortgage as a surety for a loan, sold the mortgaged property without disclosing the encumbrance. The core legal question was whether a surety/guarantor falls within the ambit of criminal liability under Section 7 of the Ordinance, which penalizes the destruction, removal, or unauthorized transfer of mortgaged property. The Court held that Section 7 explicitly targets the 'loanee' and uses the pronoun 'him,' which cannot be judicially expanded to include a surety. The Court reasoned that the legislature intentionally excluded sureties to facilitate banking transactions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the complaint was invalid due to improper delegation of authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the Banking Tribunal's order, quashed the criminal proceedings, and acquitted the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does Section 7 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 impose criminal liability on a surety or guarantor?
- Can a person holding delegated authority from a bank further delegate the power to initiate criminal prosecution against a third party?
- Is a surety criminally liable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 for the unauthorized sale of mortgaged property?
- Mrs. Naseem Firdous vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation through Managing Director and 3 others1995 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Director (Design) at the Punjab Small Industries Corporation, challenged an advertisement for a Designer/Modeller position that restricted eligibility to 'male only' candidates. The petitioner alleged discrimination based on sex, violating Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The respondents argued the petition was barred by laches and contended that the job's nature—requiring extensive travel, late hours, and dark-room work—necessitated a male incumbent. The Court held that the restriction was discriminatory and lacked a reasonable nexus to the job's requirements. It emphasized that modern professional standards no longer support the exclusion of women based on stereotypical assumptions about domestic responsibilities or physical capability. The Court ruled that the constitutional mandate of equality prohibits such gender-based exclusion unless the duties are demonstrably impossible for the other sex to perform. Consequently, the Court declared the appointment of the respondent void, rejected the laches defense as inapplicable to discriminatory state actions, and directed the authorities to fill the vacancy through a non-discriminatory process.
Questions settled- Does restricting a public service position to 'male only' candidates violate the constitutional guarantee of equality?
- Can a state department justify gender-based exclusion from employment by citing stereotypical assumptions about domestic responsibilities or physical limitations?
- Is the defense of laches applicable to a writ petition challenging a discriminatory state action?
- Under what circumstances can specific posts be reserved for members of one sex under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Mrs. Kulsoom Ara vs The Controller of Examination, University of the Punjab, Lahore1995 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Moreed Baz vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz Ahmad vs Asghar AliK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mohabbat Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1995 PLC 667 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the petitioner's dismissal from government service as a driver. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's status—whether he was a 'civil servant' or a 'workman'—and the maintainability of his grievance petition. The Court held that a driver, being a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, such employees fall outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. However, the Court dismissed the petition on the merits and procedural grounds. It ruled that the petitioner was disentitled to relief due to gross laches, as the petition was filed over a year after the Labour Court's dismissal. Additionally, the Court found that the departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, satisfying the requirements of natural justice, and that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically bar departmental action. The key principle established is that drivers are 'workmen' rather than 'civil servants,' and that constitutional relief in service matters is barred by unreasonable delay.
Questions settled- Is a government driver considered a 'civil servant' or a 'workman' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does the acquittal of a government employee in criminal proceedings automatically bar departmental disciplinary action?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches in service matters?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, exclude a driver from the category of 'civil servant'?