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.

• H. Pir Buksh And Others vs Administratorgeneral, Punjab1995 MLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaythird proviso to section 497murdertrial delaycriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by petitioners accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who sought release on the ground of statutory delay in trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to mandatory bail due to the passage of two years since the case's registration, despite the trial being near completion. The Court examined the trial court's order-sheets and found that significant delays were directly attributable to the petitioners, including the absence of the accused, the absence of their counsel, or adjournments sought on their behalf. Holding that the statutory right to bail under the third proviso is forfeited if the delay is occasioned by the act or omission of the accused, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not grant an absolute right to bail if the accused has contributed to the delay in the conclusion of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an absolute right to bail if the trial has not concluded within two years?
  • Can bail be refused under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the delay in trial is attributable to the accused?
  • Is it appropriate for the Court to grant bail when the trial has already commenced and is near conclusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulraiz vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Government Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and anothers vs Province of Punjab and others1995 CLC 765 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Government CONTRACTOR's Association vs Government of PakistanKL.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Gohar Rashid vs Fazal Hasan Mazhar1995 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20
  personal needejectment petitionlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementnon-appearance of landlordexamination of attorneyburden of proofPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's second appeal against the concurrent dismissal of an ejectment petition filed under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking the eviction of a tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of personal bona fide need. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge had non-suited the appellant primarily for failing to personally appear in the witness-box, omitting details of the requirement in the petition, and allegedly possessing alternative vacant portions within the same building. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a landlord is not legally required to personally testify if an attorney with personal knowledge is examined, nor is there any strict requirement to plead detailed specifics of personal need or negative ownership of other properties in the eviction application. Furthermore, the court reiterated that it is the exclusive prerogative of the landlord to select which property to occupy, and the tenant bears the burden of proving bad faith once the landlord establishes a bona fide requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-appearance of a landlord as a witness in an ejectment petition is fatal to the case when a duly conversant attorney is examined?
  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to explicitly detail the nature of personal requirement and plead non-ownership of other properties in the ejectment application?
  • Does a Rent Controller or appellate court have the authority to dictate which property a landlord should occupy for their business?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish lack of good faith once the landlord produces evidence showing a bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghumgeen Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Castes 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulamshabbir vs Judge Family Court, Layyah , Decided Oh February, 1996K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 482 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Sobia Bhatti vs Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others1997 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 84 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabhir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 583 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 707 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court and anothers1997 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1995 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sadiq vs The State1997 MLD 126 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Haji Allah Wasaya and others1995 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs Khuda Bakhsh and others1995 CLC 26. · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs Canal Authorities and others1995 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool And Others vs Canal Authorities And Other1995 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs Member, Board of Revenue1995 CLC 679 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18
  constitutional petitionfirst information reportsecond FIRcross FIRquashing of FIRpolice investigationcognizable offenceprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973 was brought by a security guard seeking cancellation of an existing First Information Report, registration of a new FIR reflecting the petitioner's version of a clash over land possession, and the appointment of a senior police officer as investigating officer. The core legal questions involved whether a second FIR can be registered for the same occurrence, whether the High Court is bound to order the registration of a case where another remedy exists, and whether the court can interfere in police investigations. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while there is no absolute bar to registering a second FIR or cross-FIR, an order by the High Court to do so is normally not justified, especially since parties can bring their version on record during ongoing investigations and file a private complaint under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the court held that police investigation is an inherent domain into which the superior courts should not interfere.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer under a statutory duty to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can a second First Information Report be registered in respect of a different version of the same incident?
  • Is the High Court under an obligation to order the registration of a case when alternative remedies such as a private complaint are available?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere in the process of police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs Muhammad Ramzan1995 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealidentification paradecircumstantial evidencemurderappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the suspension of sentence filed by convicts seeking relief from their conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court can suspend a sentence of imprisonment pending appeal based on infirmities in the trial court's appraisal of evidence, specifically concerning delayed identification parades, failure to ascribe roles to the accused, and prior acquaintance between the parties. The court held that the appellants made out a sufficient case for the suspension of their sentences as the evidentiary value of the identification parade was severely compromised because the accused had joined the investigation weeks prior and were already known to the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court may suspend a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when tentative assessment reveals glaring infirmities in the judgment, such as defective identification parades and disbelieved recoveries, rendering the conviction prima facie unsustainable without pre-judging the main appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a High Court suspend a sentence of imprisonment pending the hearing of an appeal?
  • What is the legal effect on an identification parade when the identifying witnesses fail to ascribe any specific role to the accused?
  • Does the prior acquaintance between the accused and the prosecution witnesses affect the credibility of a subsequent identification parade?
  • Can the delayed holding of a test identification parade after the accused has already joined the police investigation weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and others vs The State1995 MLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and anothers vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 526 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Member Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and another1995 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The Member Revenue, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1995 CLC 254 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 656 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khaliq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs Government of Punjab and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 115 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam HUSSAINPetitoner vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 404 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Miraj Bibi1995 MLD 435 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02
  pre-emptionexchange of landsecond appealburden of proofsham transactionnature of transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the respondent challenged a land transaction, originally recorded as an exchange, alleging it was a disguised sale. The core legal question was whether the transaction constituted a sale subject to the right of pre-emption or a genuine exchange. The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the transaction was a sale, noting that the respondent's evidence was deficient and contradicted by her own admissions regarding the possession of the land by third parties. The Court emphasized that a transaction must be taken at face value unless cogent evidence proves otherwise, and the mere use of a legal device to avoid pre-emption does not automatically render a transaction a sale. The Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, restoring the trial court's decision that the transaction was a valid exchange, thereby establishing that for a transaction to be classified as a sale, there must be clear proof of cash consideration and transfer of ownership in exchange for that price.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transaction recorded as an exchange be treated as a sale for the purposes of pre-emption without proof of cash consideration?
  • Does the use of a legal device to avoid pre-emption automatically invalidate an exchange of land?
  • Is a finding of fact by an appellate court immune from interference in a second appeal when the lower courts' judgments are at variance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 569 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Member (Judicial), Board or Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1995 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 515 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Ghulam Kazim And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 657 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 562 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Alias Musa vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 545 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ghula.M Mustafa And Others vs The State1995 MLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Baig vs The State1995 MLD 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• G.M. Khairati vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Flying Paper Industries And Others vs Punjab Textbook Board1995 MLD 904 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Flour Mils Association vs Zila Council MultanK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Trading Corporation vs WAPDA through its Chairman and 3 others1995 CLC 483 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din and 4 others vs Bahadur Ali and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 18 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs S.D.O., Highway, Wazirabad and others1995 MLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ur Rehman vs S.D.O., Highway, Wazirabad And Other1995 MLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 620 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain and others vs Malik Muhammad Saeed and others1995 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Haider Shah vs District Magistrate, Gujrat and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Fatima Bibi And Another vs The S.H.O. Police Station Bahanwala, TehsilK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Fatima Bibi and another vs Mallan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14
  quashment of FIRmala fidewrit jurisdictionstay of criminal proceedingsfamily courtZina Ordinancejudicial review of investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a woman and her mother seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alleging abduction and adultery. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation where the F.I.R. appeared to be a mala fide counterblast to a pending civil suit for dissolution of marriage and where the allegations lacked credibility. The Court held that while it ordinarily refrains from interfering with police investigations, it may intervene in the interest of justice when police actions are not sacrosanct and subject to judicial scrutiny under the Constitution. Finding the F.I.R. to be mala fide and noting that the petitioner had already initiated civil proceedings for the dissolution of her marriage, the Court ordered the suspension of the criminal investigation pending the final resolution of the family dispute by the Family Court. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings should be stayed when the underlying controversy is concurrently pending before a competent Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with a police investigation under its writ jurisdiction?
  • Should criminal proceedings be stayed when a related matter is pending before a Family Court?
  • Are police actions and investigations subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima Bibi And Another vs Malian And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 48 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Mst. Hafizan Begum and others1995 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Province of Punjab1995 CLC 111 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Manzoor and 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan And Other vs Province of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan And 2 Others vs Province of Punjab And Another1995 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali Shah vs S.H.O., Police Station City, Muzaffargarh1995 P Cr. L J 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Faryad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 433 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Faryad Ali alias Faiz and other vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs The State1995 KLR criminal cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
• Faraz Gul vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 8 others vs Abdul Momin and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21
  specific performancetime is of the essenceimmovable propertybona fide purchaserlis pendensagreement for sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land, which was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The vendor had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs but later transferred it to the appellants during the pendency of the suit. The appellants and vendor contested the suit, arguing that time was of the essence of the contract and that the plaintiffs failed to perform their part, while the appellants claimed to be bona fide purchasers without notice. The Lahore High Court held that in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless proven otherwise, and the vendor herself was not in a position to transfer the title during the stipulated period as mutations were pending. Furthermore, the court held that the sale in favour of the appellants during the pendency of the suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and conferred no valid title against the plaintiffs. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property?
  • Does the execution of a power of attorney transfer title to an attorney or validate subsequent sales from its date of execution?
  • Does a sale of property executed during the pendency of a specific performance suit affect the rights of the plaintiff under the doctrine of lis pendens?
  • Can a vendor claim breach of contract for delay when the vendor herself lacked title and was unable to execute the sale-deed during the stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• Falaksher vs Noor Muhammad, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Hayat, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 256 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
• Faiz Karim vs Multan Development Authority through Director General1995 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27
  cooperative societiesarbitration awardallotment cancellationimmovable propertytime essence of contractsubsequent transfereeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to the cancellation of a plot allotment. The core legal questions involved whether the original allottee's allotment was legally cancelled for non-construction, whether an arbitration award under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 required making it a rule of the court to be enforceable, and whether a subsequent allottee was entitled to a hearing upon cancellation of his allotment. The Lahore High Court held that time is not of the essence in immovable property sales and penalizing an allottee for non-construction is illegal when possession could not be delivered due to squatters. Furthermore, an award rendered under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is final under section 57 and does not require validation as a rule of the court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Consequently, the original allotment stood restored, leaving no valid title for subsequent transfer, rendering a hearing for the subsequent transferee unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property?
  • Does an arbitration award rendered under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 require being made a rule of the court to be valid and enforceable?
  • Can an allottee be penalized for failing to raise construction when physical possession of the plot could not be delivered due to squatters?
  • Whether a subsequent transferee is entitled to a pre-cancellation hearing when their allotment was void ab initio due to the prior restoration of the plot to the original allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Elahi vs The State1995 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Fahad Latif Piracha vs Board of Intermediate and SecondaryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 492 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Evanuee Trust Property Board vs The Deputy Commissioner SahiwalK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah Tarar vs Gul Nawaz Waraich and 6 others1995 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company, Ltd. vs Khushi Muhammad1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Khan vs The SHO, P.S. City B-Division R.Y.KhanK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 589 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Khan vs S.H.O., Police Station "B" Division, Rahimyar1995 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Droop Khan vs Zuhammad Yaseen And Other1995 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Qambar Murtaza Bokhari vs Chairman, Arbitration and Reconciliation Comittee, Lahore and another1995 CLC 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sher Dil Batra and others vs Director, Federal Investigation Agency1995 P Cr. L J 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sheela B. Charles vs Election Tribunal and another1995 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07
  interlocutory orderelection petitionrecount of votesmaintainability of writ petitionadequate remedymerger of ordersrepresentation of the people
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two writ petitions filed against an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal, Punjab, which directed a recount of ballot papers in several constituencies during pending election petitions challenging the election of the returned candidate, Dr. Sheela B. Charles. The core legal question was whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal directing a recount of votes. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, holding that the impugned order was an interlocutory order passed with jurisdiction, which would ultimately merge into the final decision of the Election Tribunal. The court laid down the principle that piecemeal or fragmentary challenges to interlocutory orders of Election Tribunals via writ petitions are barred when an adequate and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal before the Supreme Court against the final judgment is available under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal directing a recount of ballot papers?
  • Does an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal merge into its final judgment?
  • What is the proper appellate forum for challenging a final decision of an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Shaheena Nusrat vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 116 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• DR. Rubina Sharif vs Addl. Chief Secy, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rubina Sharif vs Additional Chief Secretary and others1995 MLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rubina Sharif vs Additional Chief Secretary And Other1995 MLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Qambar Murtaza Bokhari vs Mst. Zainab Bashir1995 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29
  Talaq-i-TafweezMuslim Family Laws Ordinancedelegated divorcerestitution of conjugal rightspersonal lawArbitration Councildivorce effectiveness
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the order of the Chairman, Arbitration and Reconciliation Council, declaring a divorce effective. The petitioner, a Shia Muslim, contested the wife’s exercise of 'Talaq-i-Tafweez,' arguing that the delegation was invalid and that the divorce mode should follow Shia law. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the delegated power, the governing sect law for the divorce, and the Chairman's jurisdiction. The Court held that the delegation of Talaq-i-Tafweez in the Nikahnama was unconditional and valid. It established that the personal law of the spouse exercising the right of divorce governs the mode of pronouncement; thus, the respondent, being a Sunni, was entitled to exercise the right according to Sunni law. The Court affirmed that the Chairman acted within his jurisdiction under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to initiate reconciliation and certify the divorce's effectiveness after the statutory period. The principle laid down is that once a husband delegates the power of divorce, it becomes irrevocable upon exercise, and the Chairman is legally bound to process such notices under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband delegate the power of divorce (Talaq-i-Tafweez) to his wife in the Nikahnama?
  • Does the personal law of the wife or the husband govern the mode of divorce when the power of Talaq-i-Tafweez is exercised?
  • Does the Chairman of an Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction to certify the effectiveness of a divorce after the failure of reconciliation?
  • Is a formal pronouncement of Talaq required when a wife exercises the delegated power of Talaq-i-Tafweez?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naeem Akhtar vs Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shafique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah vs Pakistan Medical Council and others1995 MLD 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah vs Pakistan Medical Council And Other1995 MLD 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hassan, Additional Medical Superintendent, Services1995 MLD 264 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →