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.

• Shakil Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Sarwar vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Sultan Ahmad vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima (Widow) And 8 Other1994 CLC 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Qadir vs Secretary to Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 437 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-13Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15
  attempted murderinjured witnessdelayed FIRfirearm injuriesQisas and Diyyatcriminal appealsentencing disparity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by a Special Court for offences involving firearm injuries. The appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were inimical, the FIR was delayed, and the injuries were sustained in darkness by unknown assailants. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the occurrence and the appellants' participation through the testimony of an injured witness, prompt medical examination, and the recovery of incriminating weapons. The Court rejected the defence's theory of false implication, noting the lack of evidence regarding alternative enmity. While upholding the conviction, the Court observed significant legislative incoherence in Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the sentencing disparity between attempted murder and the actual hurt caused. The Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction while modifying the sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the need to attend to an injured victim?
  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon to uphold a conviction despite claims of enmity between the parties?
  • Is the conviction for attempted murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the evidence confirms the accused caused firearm injuries to the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
• Shahamat vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1994 MLD 807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman Ali vs Mst. Mussarrat Begum And Other1994 CLC 528 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Ashraf And Another1994 CLC 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd, Gulberg III Lahore vs Federal GovernmentK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 137 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Bari vs The State1994 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• Shadi Muhammad vs Subedar (Retd.) Lal Din1994 MLD 561 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Shadi Muhammad and others vs Abdul Rashid and others1994 MLD 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan through Legal Heirss vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1994 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbiran Bibi vs Faqir Muhammad1994 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 554 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State1994 MLD 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shabbir And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Alias Babu vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• SH.Amjad Ali vs A.D J. Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sh. Zulfiqar Ali vs Sh. Muhammad Rashid And Other1994 CLC 504 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Munir Ahmad, Advocate vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Usman vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Publicatlarge and others1994 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Mushtaq And Other vs Public at Large And Other1994 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Mubarak And 5 Others vs Muhammad Iqbal And 11 Other1994 CLC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-06
  Civil ProcedureService of NoticeCounsel's AuthorityPower of AttorneyNon-prosecutionLimitation ActPresumption of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a reference to a Division Bench regarding whether notice served upon a counsel concerning the fixation of a case constitutes valid service on the party under Order III, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners sought re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, arguing that their counsel had informed the court of his cessation of representation, thereby necessitating personal service on the parties. The Court examined whether such intimation effectively rebuts the presumption of service. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that service on a duly appointed counsel is deemed service on the party. The Court emphasized that a counsel remains the authorized representative until they formally withdraw with the court’s permission, as mandated by Order III, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling that the presumption of service stands unless the counsel has formally terminated their authority through the prescribed legal procedure. The applications for re-admission were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of notice on a counsel constitute valid service on the party under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal requirement for a counsel to effectively terminate their authority to represent a party in court proceedings?
  • Can a court presume service on a party based on notice to the counsel if the counsel has not formally withdrawn with the court's permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ghulam Irfan vs Raheela Fayyaz1994 MLD 789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdur Rashid vs Sh. Mubarik Ali, And Other1994 CLC 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20
  part performanceunregistered agreement of saleprotection of possessionlimitation periodspecific performancedeclaratory suitequity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision addresses whether a person who obtained possession of immovable property under an unregistered written agreement of sale can claim the protection of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, despite failing to sue for specific performance within the limitation period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908. The petitioner had paid a substantial portion of the sale price and was handed possession by the sellers, but subsequently, the sellers filed a suit for recovery of possession alleging breach of contract, while the petitioner filed a declaratory suit. The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the sellers' suit, holding that the agreement was unregistered and time-barred for specific performance. The Lahore High Court held that the doctrine of part performance embodied in section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is a passive equity available as a shield to protect possession, and is neither subject to the limitation period for specific performance nor defeated by the lack of registration. The High Court consequently set aside the lower courts' judgments, dismissed the sellers' suit for possession, and decreed the petitioner's declaratory suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the plea of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 subject to the period of limitation prescribed for a suit for specific performance?
  • Can a transferee who obtained possession under an unregistered written agreement of sale defend and protect his possession against the transferor?
  • Whether the doctrine of part performance is available as a shield to a person who has failed to institute a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale within the limitation period?
  • Does the absence of registration of an agreement of sale bar a transferee from availing the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when possession has been delivered and part payment made?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Ijaz Hussain alias Tahir Pir vs The State1994 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Bibi vs As & RC1994 CLC 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs The State1994 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad Bhatti vs House Building Finance Corporation1994 MLD 939 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate vs Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and another1994 MLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16
  quo warrantoelection processconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitynecessary partyjudicial interferenceelection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of quo warranto against the respondents, alleging they were disqualified from serving as members of the National Assembly under Article 63(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner requested the Court to prohibit the issuance of election notifications and prevent the respondents from taking their oaths. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a writ against individuals not yet holding public office, the necessity of impleading the Election Commission of Pakistan, and the scope of judicial interference in the election process. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the respondents were not yet holders of public office at the time of filing, and the petition was improperly constituted for failing to implead the Election Commission of Pakistan. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 225 of the Constitution, the election process is a continuous series of steps that cannot be challenged through Article 199 petitions, but only via election petitions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, having also become infructuous due to subsequent events.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against individuals who have not yet assumed public office?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable if a necessary party, such as the Election Commission of Pakistan, is not impleaded?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 bar the High Court from interfering in the election process under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shah and anothers vs Rasul Bibi and 14 others1994 MLD 711 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1994 CLC 681 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and others vs Hmi Ahmad1994 MLD 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Begum vs Settlement Commissioner1994 CLC 359 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bakhsh vs Mst. Maqsood Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13
  arbitration agreementsecondary evidenceproof of loss of documentattestation of documentsQanun-e-Shahadatmaking award rule of courtremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to make an arbitration award a rule of the court, alongside an objection petition challenging the appointment of the arbitrator and the execution of the arbitration agreement. The trial court overruled the objections regarding the agreement's execution and made the award a rule of the court, except for the portion affecting a minor who was not a party. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not duly proved under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and that secondary evidence of the agreement was wrongly permitted without legally proving its loss. The Lahore High Court held that Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 applies strictly to documents required by law to be attested, and arbitration agreements carry no such statutory requirement. However, the Court held that the trial court erred in admitting secondary evidence based on a vague statement by the arbitrator without requiring proper proof of loss or exhaustion of search efforts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 apply to an arbitration agreement?
  • What proof of loss is required before a party can be permitted to lead secondary evidence of a document?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with the trial court's discretion in permitting secondary evidence?
  • Whether an arbitration agreement requires attestation by two marginal witnesses under the law.
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad And Others vs Assistant Commissoner And Other1994 CLC 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Saraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 162 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Santa vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 79) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Sanobar Khan vs Muhammad Younis1994 CLC 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sandal Fibres Limited through Its Directors And Other vs GovernmentK.L.R. 1994 CivU Cases 378 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 57) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs Feroze Din1994 MLD 618 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Samson Masih alias Pappu vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Samad Khan and anothers vs Bhag Bhari and 2 others1994 MLD 317 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Salma Hamid vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others1994 MLD 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad And Others vs Custodian Evacuee Trust Property1994 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Saleem Parvaiz Siddiqui vs Mst. Shamsa Zarin and others1994 MLD 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 2290 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15
  constitutional petitionwrit petitionimmovable propertycivil disputealternative remedycivil suitdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of Pakistan Railways and allottees of plots on land leased to a cooperative housing society, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 alleging that the Municipal Corporation unlawfully demolished their constructions. During the hearing, it was revealed that a civil suit concerning the same immovable property and dispute was already pending before a civil court, in which a temporary injunction had been issued and confirmed in favor of the society, a fact omitted from the writ petition. The Lahore High Court held that a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for resolving title and property disputes, and the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked or substituted for ordinary civil remedies when a suit is already pending and no exceptional circumstances or statutory violations by a public authority are established. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked to resolve property and title disputes when an ordinary civil suit is already pending?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy by way of a regular civil suit bar the entertainment of a constitutional petition relating to immovable property?
  • Whether suppression of the fact regarding the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same subject-matter warrants the dismissal of a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Salam Din vs M.B.R. and others1994 MLD 564 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Rashid and 39 others vs The University of Punjab through its1994 MLD 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs Maud. Mahmood and 7 others1994 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29
  bail before arrestcancellation of bailmala fidesulterior motivespre-arrest bail conditionsstatus of accusedcognizable offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, in a case registered under sections 337/A-II, 337/F-I, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the respondents satisfied the stringent conditions required for the grant of pre-arrest bail, specifically the existence of mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the lower court acted without jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail as the essential prerequisites—namely, proof or specific assertion of mala fides and apprehended humiliation or harassment by the police or complainant—were absent, and sufficient incriminating material connected the accused to the crime. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and is not a privilege or prerogative based on the social status, profession, or educational background of an accused person, and that the rule requiring proof of mala fides for anticipatory bail must be strictly applied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without establishing mala fides or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Does the professional or social status of an accused person entitle them to special consideration or leniency in the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail before arrest be sustained when prima facie sufficient material connects the accused to a cognizable offence involving injuries on vital parts of the body?
  • Is the bald opinion of an investigating officer regarding a scuffle sufficient to displace the consistent statements of injured witnesses for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs The State1994 MLD 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad Younas1994 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sajawal vs Mst. Sobia Hameed And Other1994 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Sain and others vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab1994 MLD 2143 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman Through Legal Heirs vs Rehmat Ali And 12 Other1994 CLC 313 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 87) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs Gulzar Khan and others1994 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ahmad vs Dr. Muhammad Shuja and others1994 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Safdar Khan- vs Ch. Muhammad Saleem And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Safdar Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hayat vs Ghulam Muhammad And Another1994 CLC 146 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Nathey Khan And Other1994 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah Khan vs Allah Diwaya Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 144) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 71) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sadiya Begum vs Improvement Trust1994 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1994 MLD 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Enterprises vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16
  customs valuationconstitutional petitionexhaustion of remediesjurisdictional defectimport dutycondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of constitutional petitions filed by importers of chemical products, specifically Alcoprint PTF and DP 3-2680, challenging a customs valuation decision. The core dispute arose when customs authorities amended the valuation manual to delete the separate entry for DP 3-2680, effectively treating it as identical to Alcoprint PTF for duty purposes, despite the petitioners' contention that the products are distinct. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the petitioners failed to exhaust statutory remedies of appeal and revision available under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that the impugned order, which involved a factual determination regarding the nature of the chemicals, did not suffer from a jurisdictional defect or nullity that would bypass the requirement to exhaust statutory remedies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as premature, directing the petitioners to pursue their departmental remedies, while noting that the time spent in the High Court could be considered for condonation of delay by the appellate authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when statutory remedies of appeal and revision under the Customs Act, 1969 have not been exhausted?
  • Does an order based on a disputed finding of fact constitute a jurisdictional defect sufficient to bypass statutory appellate remedies?
  • Can the time spent pursuing a constitutional petition be considered for condonation of delay in subsequent departmental appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Saba Gul Qureshi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1994 CLC 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rozina Khatoon vs Muhammad YousafK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din And Others vs Muhammad Maqbool1994 CLC 677 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Riffat Ibrar vs Mst. Shehla Sabri and others1994 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Riffat Ibrar vs Mst. Shehla Sabri And Other1994 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz Electric Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Cool Industies (Pvt.) Ltd.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 567 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 535 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad And 3 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09
  post-arrest bailblasphemyFirst Information Reportpolice investigationconstitutionalityAhmadiyya communityprohibitory clausedefilement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Lahore High Court addresses a reference to a Full Bench and a subsequent post-arrest bail application in a case registered under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Full Bench was tasked with determining whether a police investigation can commence before the formal registration of a First Information Report (FIR), the weight of delay in sensitive blasphemy cases, and the constitutionality of Section 295-C. The Full Bench held that recording an FIR is not a condition-precedent to initiating a criminal investigation, and any failure to do so does not per se vitiate the arrest or trial. It further held that Section 295-C is constitutionally valid. Subsequently, the Single Bench evaluated the petitioners' bail application. The petitioners, belonging to the Ahmadiyya community, allegedly made derogatory comparisons between Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Conducting a tentative assessment, the Court held that such comparisons prima facie constitute defilement under Section 295-C. Since the offence carries the death penalty, falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail was denied.

  Questions settled

  • Is the formal registration of a First Information Report (FIR) a mandatory condition-precedent for the police to initiate a criminal investigation?
  • Does an irregularity or delay in the recording of a First Information Report (FIR) by the police vitiate the subsequent arrest or trial of the accused?
  • Is Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violative of any provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether comparing any person's status or miracles to those of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) prima facie constitutes the offence of defilement under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Mst. Sardar Bibi And 7 Other1994 CLC 475 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26
  civil revisiongift of landvalidity of giftburden of proofdonor capacitymarginal witnessmuslim lawcustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding the validity of a gift of agricultural land measuring 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas executed by one Taj Din in favour of the petitioner, Riasat Ali. The trial Court initially upheld the gift and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the lower appellate Court reversed this decision and annulled the gift, holding it not proved. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the voluntary execution of the gift-deed by the donor, coupled with the delivery of possession and his sound disposing mind at the relevant time, was adequately established by the defendant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, holding that the evidence produced by the defendant to prove the gift was unconvincing, unsatisfactory, and fraught with serious doubts, particularly given the donor's hospitalization, conflicting testimonies of marginal witnesses, and lack of reliable proof regarding his physical and mental capacity at the time of the alleged transaction. The key principle laid down is that when the execution of a gift-deed is categorically denied and surrounded by suspicious circumstances such as the donor's critical illness, the heavy onus lies upon the beneficiary to prove the voluntary and genuine execution of the gift through clear, credible, and unimpeachable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the heavy onus of proving the voluntary execution of a gift-deed when its execution is denied by the plaintiffs?
  • Whether a gift of land is validly proved when the marginal witnesses fail to support its voluntary execution and the donor's mental capacity is seriously disputed?
  • Does the mere registration of a gift-deed cure serious doubts regarding the donor's physical and mental capacity to make a valid donation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat through Legal Heirs and others vs Allah Ditta and others1994 MLD 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rehmat And Another vs Allah Ditta And Another(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 98) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Alt vs Mukhtar Bibi And Other1994 CLC 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 70) · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Sooba Khan and 25 others1994 PLD Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Sooba Khan And 25 Other1994 PLD Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Hashmat Ali And Other1994 CLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Regional Head National Bank of Pakistan And Another vs MahboobK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• Razaq Ahmad Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 42) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Rauful Mulk vs Muhammad Saleem And Another1994 CLC 111 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-26Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bakhsh vs Mushtaq1994 MLD 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmed Etc vs Sardar Bibi And 10 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs Sardar Bibi and others1994 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25
  civil revisiongift-deedburden of proofadverse inferenceinheritanceexecution of documentconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration of rights and possession regarding agricultural land, challenging a gift-deed allegedly executed by the deceased owner in favour of his brother. The core legal question centered on the genuineness and valid execution of the gift-deed amidst allegations of fraud and the donor's critical illness. Both the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the execution and registration of the gift-deed unproven. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, holding that the onus heavily lay upon the beneficiary-donee to prove the valid execution of the gift-deed, which the defendants failed to discharge given their failure to produce essential witnesses such as the scribe, stamp-vendor, and marginal witnesses, alongside suspicious circumstances surrounding the donor's health and hospital admission. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proving a gift is strictly on the beneficiary, and the withholding of primary attesting and drafting witnesses raises a strong adverse inference against its validity.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the heavy onus to prove the valid execution of a gift-deed when it is challenged on the grounds of fraud and incapacity?
  • What is the legal effect on a party's case when key witnesses such as the scribe, stamp-vendor, and marginal witnesses are withheld from giving evidence?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding the invalidity of a gift-deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Willayat Ali vs The State1994 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →