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.

• Dr. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Government of the Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 699 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mrs. Zahida Iftikhar vs Government of Punjab1995 PLC (C.S.) 372 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore through DirectorGeneral and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 579 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Aslam Syed vs Ouaid-E-Azam University, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hameed Ahmad Ayyaz vs Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Mohayyuddin Chaudhry vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 188 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ehsanulhaq Niazi and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Barkat Ali, Associate Professor vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1995 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Akram Chaudhry vs Ch. Fazal Dad1997 MLD 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ahsan Waheed Rathore vs College of Physicians1995 CLC 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abrar Hussain Ahmed Khan and others vs Government of Punjab1995 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19
  service rulesconstitutional petitionmedical educationeligibility criteriapublic employmentmerit-based selectionforeign qualificationsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979, which relegated foreign-trained medical professionals to a secondary category for the post of Assistant Professor (Plastic Surgery), making them eligible only if no local candidates were available. The petitioner, a foreign-trained surgeon, contended that these rules were discriminatory, contrary to merit, and inconsistent with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council's recognition of his qualifications. The Court examined whether such rules were unjust and whether the government was bound by its own Service Rules Committee's recommendations to rectify the identified anomaly. The High Court held that the impugned rule was unconscionable, unjust, and unfair, as it discouraged merit and foreign-acquired expertise. The Court declared the petitioner eligible and at par with other candidates. It directed the Government of Punjab to implement the recommendations of its Service Rules Committee to amend the rules, emphasizing that public employment selection processes must prioritize merit and equal opportunity rather than arbitrarily excluding qualified candidates based on the location of their training.

  Questions settled

  • Are service rules that relegate foreign-trained professionals to a secondary category of eligibility for public teaching posts unconstitutional or unfair?
  • Is the government bound to implement recommendations made by its own Service Rules Committee regarding the amendment of discriminatory service rules?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council have the authority to certify the equivalence of foreign medical qualifications for the purpose of domestic teaching appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And Others vs Muzaffar Khan1995 MLD 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
• Dosa vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs National IndustrialK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 94 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dilshad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 248 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28
  murderocular testimonypolice statementsection 161 Cr.P.C.admissibility of evidencerecovery of weaponsentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased through multiple stab wounds inflicted with a chhuri. The core legal questions involved whether the eyewitness testimony whose police statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded is admissible, and whether the remaining prosecution evidence sufficiently established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not mandatory substantive pieces of evidence, but where an investigating officer fails to record a material witness's statement, depriving the accused of cross-examination utility, that witness's testimony is inadmissible. However, excluding that testimony, the court found the remaining ocular account of the complainant father duly corroborated by medical evidence and credible recovery. While setting aside the unproven motive and noting the deceased's personal habits, the court upheld the conviction based on cumulative evidence but reduced the sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness whose statement was not recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary corroborated eyewitness account when another eyewitness testimony is excluded?
  • Whether failure to prove the motive alleged by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilmeer vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 686(1) · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dildar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain vs Muhammad Saleem and another1995 CLC 777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Dhoop Khan vs Muhammad Yaseen and others1995 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Deltatek Pvt. Ltd. vs Town Committee, Khan Garh and others1995 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Deltatek Pvt. Ltd. vs Town Committee, Khan Garh And Other1995 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• D.P. Edulji & Co (Pvt) Ltd vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• D. P. Edulji & Co. (Put.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Crescent Board Limited, Faisalabad through General Manager vs Muhammad Shabbir and 2 others1995 PLC 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Lahore vs Capt. (Retd.)1995 PTD 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01
  income tax referenceadvisory jurisdictionquestion of lawIncome Tax Appellate Tribunalstatutory interpretationtax assessmentHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns tax references filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act to adjudicate a new question of law that was neither raised before the Tribunal in a Section 66(1) application nor addressed by the Tribunal in its order. The Court dismissed the references, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain questions not previously raised before or considered by the Tribunal. The Court affirmed that its jurisdiction under Section 66 is advisory, not appellate or revisional. A question of law 'arises out of the order' of the Tribunal only if it was raised before and dealt with by the Tribunal, or raised but not dealt with, or not raised but dealt with by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court cannot address issues outside the scope of the original reference, as its authority is strictly limited to answering questions properly referred to it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act to decide a question of law that was not raised before or dealt with by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  • What constitutes a question of law arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of a reference under the Income Tax Act?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act appellate, revisional, or advisory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Income Tax vs Gauhar AyyubK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Ghazanfar Ali Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Chief Enginner (Admn) Water And Other vs Manzoor Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labuor & Service Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab vs Bashir Ahmad1995 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Chenab Fabrics and Processing Mills Ltd. through Chief Executive1995 CLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Chenab Fabrics & Processing Mills Ltd vs Zila Council FaisalabadK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 27 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs The Registrar, Cooperative Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1995 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khalil Ur Rehman vs The Registrar, Cooperative Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1995 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Changhatta Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Chand Foundation vs Fedreation of Pakistan and OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shujaat Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervez Ellahi vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior,Islamabad And 3 Other1995 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervez Ellahi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others1995 MLD 615 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervez Elahi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elam, M.Pa. vs S.H.O., Police Station Mla Gujar Singh and 41995 P Cr. L J 345 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• CH. Pervaiz Elahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob vs Nazim Hussain and others1995 CLC 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28
  pre-emptionzar-e-soamextension of timecivil revisiondiscretionary reliefprocedural lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order of the trial court granting a one-day extension to the respondents for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' (one-third of the sale price) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court had the lawful authority under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption money after the expiry of the originally fixed period, and whether such discretion was properly exercised. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court possesses the jurisdiction under Section 148, C.P.C., and Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act to extend the time for deposit up to the maximum statutory limit of thirty days from the filing of the suit upon sufficient cause. The court established that the statutory wording 'shall be dismissed' requires judicial consideration of whether a default occurred, and procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than penalize bona fide human errors or entrap litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the jurisdiction under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' after the originally fixed period has expired?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit stands automatically dismissed upon the expiry of the date fixed for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' without a formal judicial determination of default?
  • Can a court extend the time for depositing the pre-emption sale price up to the maximum statutory limit of thirty days from the filing of the suit?
  • Is a bona fide human error in depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' a sufficient ground for the exercise of judicial discretion to grant a brief extension of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate vs MRs, Benazir Bhutto, Mna, Prime1995 MLD 1615 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sadio, Advocate vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, Mna, Prime1995 MLD 1615 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ilyas And 3 Others vs Waheeduddin Ziauddin Ahmad And Another1995 MLD 237 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Afzal vs The Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and 51995 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Abdullah Virk vs Rana Nazir Ahmed, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 592 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mehdi Khan and others vs Punjab Province and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• CH. Imran Raza Khan vs The Deputy Commissloner/CHAIRMAN DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 90 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Rehman vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• CH Waheed-U-Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 424 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Catholic Church vs The Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab1995 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi vs Sh. Muhammad Saeed And Another1995 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board through Executive Officer vs Secretary, Government1995 CLC 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Through Cantonment Executive Officer, Sialkot vs Haji1995 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Rawalpindi vs (SH.) Muhammad SaeedK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs The Secretary to Government1995 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Brig. (Retd.) Manzoor Malik vs The State1995 MLD 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Bostan vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
• Begum Farkhanda Akhtar and others vs Capt. M. Asif Akhtar and others1995 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01
  civil revisionexamination on commissionParda-observing ladypersonal appearanceexemption from court appearancecustoms and mannersadministration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from an administration suit concerning the estate of a deceased Air Vice Marshal. The core legal question was whether the widow of the deceased, defendant No. 1, was entitled to be examined by a local commissioner under the exemption provisions for women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public. The trial court rejected her application for a commission, finding she was not a Parda-observing lady and that her claim of ailment was unsubstantiated. The High Court upheld this decision, dismissing the revision in limine. The court held that the determination of whether a woman is entitled to such exemption must be based on current societal customs and manners, rather than outdated practices. It emphasized that as societal norms evolve and women increasingly participate in public life and professional spheres, the strict application of Parda-observance as a ground for exemption is diminishing. The court affirmed that trial judges retain discretion to manage such examinations in private settings, such as chambers, to balance privacy concerns with the necessity of personal appearance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exemption from personal appearance in court under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to all women regardless of their social habits?
  • Should the determination of whether a woman is a 'Parda-observing lady' be based on historical customs or contemporary societal norms?
  • Can a trial court refuse a request for examination by a local commissioner if the applicant is found to regularly appear in public?
  Read full judgment →
• Beenish Birlas vs University of Punjab and others1995 MLD 824 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Beenish Birlas vs University of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 824 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Ijaz Ahmed and others1995 P Cr. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs I. G. Police Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Abdul WahidK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Usman alias Chara and others1995 P Cr. L J 1909 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Inayat Ullah And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Patwari vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 730 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Ludden, District Vehari and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 496 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali and another. vs The Deputy Superintendent, Central ExcisePTCL 1995 CL. 429 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Centre through Abdul Hamid Khan, Managing Partner, Lahore1995 PTD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Balqees Akhtar vs Iqbal Bosan and others1995 CLC 914 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-13
  maintenance allowanceArbitration CouncilFamily CourtDistrict Collectorwrit petitiondivorceIddat period
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the District Collector, Gujrat, which reversed the finding of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, granting maintenance allowance to the petitioner for three years until the completion of Iddat. The core legal question was whether the District Collector lawfully set aside the maintenance allowance awarded by the Arbitration Council based on a separate maintenance decree passed by a Family Court for minor children. The Lahore High Court held that the proceedings before the Arbitration Council and the Family Court are entirely different, governed by distinct legal provisions, and that the District Collector's order was devoid of reasons, misapplied the law, and ignored the evidence on record. The Court set aside the order of the District Collector and restored the maintenance decree of the Arbitration Council, affirming that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife and that maintenance under relevant statutory provisions serves different purposes than proceedings before a Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings before an Arbitration Council for maintenance of a wife are distinct from proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a District Collector set aside a maintenance allowance awarded by an Arbitration Council based on a separate maintenance decree passed for minor children by a Family Court?
  • Is an order of the District Collector reducing maintenance to the Iddat period sustainable when it fails to appraise evidence and apply the relevant law?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Ali, Etc. vs (Mst.) Sharifan Deceased by Legal RepresentativesK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 430 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Bahadur vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 176 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Babu Muhammad Munir Versus S.A. Hameed, Etc. Babu Muhammad MunirK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 533 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Muhammad Aslam and others1995 MLD 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Muhammad ASI.Am And Other1995 MLD 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Aziz Book Depot Lahore vs Inspecting A.C. of Income Tax, Lahore and anotherPTCL 1995 CL. 253 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Azam Alias Ajoo vs The State1995 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Chaudary Shujat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ayyaz Ahmed vs Allah Wasaya and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Auqaf Department vs Javed Shuja and others1995 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16
  Waqf propertyPunjab Waqf Properties OrdinanceAuqaf DepartmentRegistered deedPresumption of truthGazette notificationWaqf validitySection 11 petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which declared certain property not to be Waqf property under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the validity of the Waqf deed, the effect of late publication of the government notification in the Official Gazette, and the scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Ordinance. The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the Waqf deed was a forgery, noting that a registered document carries a presumption of truth. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the late publication of the notification was a curable irregularity causing no prejudice, and that once a valid Waqf is created, subsequent conduct of the Waqif cannot invalidate it. The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 11 are limited to determining the status of the property and cannot be expanded into general inheritance or administration suits. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, upholding the validity of the Waqf and the Auqaf Department's take-over.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent conduct of a Waqif, such as dealing with the property as an owner, invalidate a validly created Waqf?
  • Does the late publication of a notification in the Official Gazette render the take-over of Waqf property by the Auqaf Department illegal?
  • Can a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, be converted into a general suit for property administration or inheritance?
  • Is a registered Waqf deed entitled to a presumption of truth, placing the burden of proving forgery on the challenger?
  Read full judgment →
• Attique-Ur-Rehman and others vs Muhammad Aslam1995 CLC 66 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18
  landlord and tenantejectment petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantco-ownershipinterlocutory orderwrit petitionjurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners concerning a commercial shop. During the proceedings, the petitioners contended that they had purchased a share in the property from one of the co-owners, thereby acquiring the status of co-owners and terminating the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller summarily held that the relationship subsisted and that the purchase did not alter the tenancy, without recording evidence or awaiting the outcome of pending civil suits concerning the disputed titles. The petitioners challenged this interlocutory order through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable against an order passed without jurisdiction and without evidence. The Court ruled that when a serious question of title and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant arises, the Rent Controller must either afford an opportunity to adduce evidence, await the decision of the court of general jurisdiction where titles are sub judice, or decide against the landlord and direct them to establish their title first. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller passed without jurisdiction?
  • Can a Rent Controller summarily decide the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant without recording evidence when the title is disputed?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a bona fide question of title and non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship is raised?
  • Does the purchase of a share in the disputed property by a tenant during ejectment proceedings extinguish the tenancy or raise questions requiring civil adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State1995 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Attiq Ur Rehman And Others vs The State1995 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Atta Subhani vs Estation, Civil Lines Slalkot And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Atta Rasool vs Fateh Khan and others1995 CLC 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19
  second appealappraisal of evidenceownership of propertyappellate court powerscourt-feemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the plaintiff’s suit regarding ownership of the property. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the appellate court erred in its reappraisal of evidence regarding the issue of title. The appellant contended that the trial court's initial appraisal was more reasonable and should not have been disturbed. The High Court held that the trial court’s original assessment was faulty because it failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding title, focusing instead on minor contradictions concerning the occupation of the house. The Court affirmed that an appellate court possesses the authority to reappraise evidence and reach its own conclusions, provided those conclusions are grounded in the record. Finding no misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the appellate court, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that a plea regarding the insufficiency of court-fee cannot be raised for the first time during a second appeal if it was not urged in the first appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the authority to reappraise evidence and reach its own conclusions in a civil suit?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the sufficiency of court-fee for the first time during a second appeal?
  • Is interference in a second appeal warranted when the appellate court's findings are based on a proper appraisal of evidence without misreading?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussa1n vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-27Read full judgment →
• Atiya Nasir and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Badana, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Athar Hussain Jafari vs SH. Akbar AminK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 185 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain and others1995 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain And Other1995 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Aslam Hayat Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →