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.

• Niamat Ali and anothers vs Additional District Judge and others1994 MLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Nematullah vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Nazir Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yaqoob And Other1994 CLC 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and others vs Abdul Rauf1994 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
• Nawazish Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan Through Establishment1994 PLC (C.S.) 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad alias Noora vs The State1994 MLD 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Ghulam Qadir and 9 others1994 MLD 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03
  specific performanceagreement to sellburden of proofcivil revisionappreciation of evidencecontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the lower appellate court. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased defendant, Lal Din, had agreed to sell the land in 1969 and received full consideration. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof to establish the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of consideration, given the defendant's denial. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement. The court found the oral evidence of the marginal witnesses to be materially contradictory and inconsistent with the plaintiff's own testimony, particularly regarding the payment of the sale price. The court emphasized that when a defendant denies the execution of a document, the burden of proof rests heavily on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove its existence. Finding the evidence insufficient and the lower courts' assessment of credibility correct, the High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, holding that the failure to prove the agreement rendered other issues, including limitation, unnecessary to decide.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove an agreement to sell when the defendant denies its execution?
  • Can a revision petition be dismissed in limine when the findings of the lower courts regarding the credibility of evidence are found to be correct?
  • Is it necessary for a court to decide on the issue of limitation if the underlying agreement to sell is not proven?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Bibi vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) And 21994 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-25Read full judgment →
• National Cotton Ginning Etc vs Granulars (Pvt) Ltd Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 558 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• National Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Lahore through the President of National Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1994 MLD 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Secretary, Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 154 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan And Others vs National Battery Industries1994 CLC 2133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26
  civil procedureplaint verificationauthorized agentburden of proofpower of attorneysuit institutionevasive denial
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which dismissed the appellant bank's suit on the grounds that it was not instituted by a duly authorized person. The core legal question was whether the suit was properly signed and verified by an authorized agent, and whether the defendant's denial of this authority—pleaded as 'want of knowledge'—constituted a valid denial requiring the plaintiff to lead evidence. The Court held that the appellant failed to produce the power of attorney or examine the alleged authorized agent to substantiate the claim of authorization. Rejecting the appellant's argument that the defendant's denial was evasive and thus amounted to an admission, the Court affirmed that the trial court correctly framed an issue regarding authorization, placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The key principle laid down is that where a specific issue regarding the authority of a person to institute a suit is framed, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove such authorization through evidence, regardless of the nature of the defendant's denial in the written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a denial of a fact for 'want of knowledge' in a written statement constitute an admission of that fact?
  • Is a plaintiff required to prove the authority of an agent to institute a suit if the defendant denies such authority?
  • Can a court require proof of a fact even if it is arguably admitted by the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nathey Khan vs Mehr Din and another1994 MLD 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27
  specific performanceagreement to sellcolony landcollector permissiondiscretionary reliefequitable jurisdictionevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two Regular Second Appeals concerning the specific performance of agreements to sell agricultural land situated in a colony area. The core legal question was whether these agreements were unenforceable due to a lack of prior permission from the Collector, as required by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Court held that agreements to sell do not create a vested right or charge on the property, and thus do not violate Section 19. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondents, as allottees who had paid the full price of the land, were full owners and competent to enter into such agreements. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal of the suits by the first appellate court. Exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court decreed specific performance, adjusting the sale price to account for inflationary trends and the passage of time, thereby balancing equity between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Do agreements to sell agricultural land in a colony area violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, if executed without the Collector's permission?
  • At what point does an allottee of Crown land become the owner for the purpose of transferring title?
  • Can a court, in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, adjust the sale price of land in a decree for specific performance to account for inflation?
  • Does an agreement to sell create a vested right or charge on the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Begum And Others vs Divisional Canal Officer And 2 Other1994 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Begum And Other vs Divisional Canal Officer And 2 Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 1) · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin and others vs Surreya Begum and others1994 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Nasira Hamid vs District Education Officer And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs The State through S.H.O. Shah Ghareeb1994 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Muhamamd Yousui1994 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Muhamamd Yousuf1994 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs Abdul Ghaffar Khan and 5 others1994 MLD 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08
  civil revisionremand orderde novo trialappellate jurisdictionprocedural lawlitigation delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, which remanded a suit for a de novo trial after adding a new issue. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in ordering an open remand for a fresh trial when the existing issues were comprehensive and the evidence on record was sufficient for a final decision. The High Court held that the remand order was improper and unwarranted. It reasoned that the appellate court possessed sufficient procedural powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to address any deficiencies in the issues or evidence without resorting to a de novo trial. Specifically, the Court emphasized that under Order XLI, Rule 24, the appellate court could cure defects in issues, and under Order XLI, Rule 25, it could remit specific issues for findings without setting aside the entire proceedings. The key principle laid down is that unnecessary remands must be avoided to prevent inordinate delay, wastage of resources, and the transformation of litigation into a shuttlecock between courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court order a de novo trial when the existing issues are comprehensive and evidence is sufficient for a final decision?
  • Does an appellate court have the power to cure defects in issues without remanding the entire suit for a fresh trial?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court remit a specific issue for a finding rather than remanding the whole suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 295 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
• Naiyer Ahmad vs Mohammad Yaqoob And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 110) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmad Etc. vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Nadeem vs The State1994 MLD 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Tufail vs Controller, Examinations Board of I & S.E. Multan1994 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Tario Bhatti vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 803 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh vs Khuda Bakhsh and 6 others1994 MLD 325 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zasha Limited (Public Limited) Company vs AgriculturalK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Wilson's Pharmaceutical vs Glaxo Ltd. and another1994 MLD 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shamas Textile Mills vs Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution And1994 PLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. SH. Safdar Ali & Co. vs Province of Punjab and others1994 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sethi Straw Board Mills Limited through Mian Muhammad Amin1994 MLD 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Services Sales Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Director (Fields)1994 PLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ramma Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited through its Director vs1994 PTD 848 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15
  income tax computationsales tax deductiontaxable incomeconstitutional petitiontax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the computation of tax liability under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner's grievance centered on the inclusion of sales tax paid on supplied goods within the petitioner's taxable income, arguing that such inclusion was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether sales tax paid by a taxpayer could be treated as part of their income for the purpose of calculating income tax under the specified ordinance. Upon review, the respondents conceded that the amount paid as sales tax cannot be deemed income of the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be subjected to income tax. Consequently, the Court held that the tax liability must be recalculated after deducting the sales tax paid. The judgment establishes the principle that sales tax paid on goods supplied does not constitute income and must be excluded from the computation of tax liability under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Can sales tax paid on goods supplied be included in the income of a taxpayer for the purpose of calculating tax under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is sales tax paid by a petitioner subject to income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Punjab Cotton Mills Ltd. through Director and anothers vs Allied1994 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Noor Hospital vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of1994 PTD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Noor Din and others vs Abdul Ghani and others1994 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Neamat Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Sheikhupura vs Province of the1994 CLC 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.), Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan CentralK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 100 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Modern Sugar Mills vs Ac/Collector And Other1994 CLC 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd And Another vs Chaudhry AgricultureK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 51 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Glaxo Laboratories vs Syed Manzar Abbas And Others1994 PLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Flopetrol International, Sa. Plot N0.386, Islamabad And 51 Others1994 CLC 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Flopetrol International, S.A., Islamabad and 51 others vs The1994 PTD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Eastern Carpets (Pak) Limited vs Province of the Punjab and1994 MLD 558 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited, Muridke Through1994 CLC 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07
  octroi dutymunicipal limitstaxation procedurelocal governmentstatutory interpretationright to object
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions filed by factory owners challenging the imposition of octroi duty by the Municipal Committee, Muridke, following the extension of municipal limits to include their previously rural areas. The core legal question was whether the extension of municipal boundaries automatically renders existing municipal taxes applicable to the newly included areas without fresh compliance with statutory taxation procedures. The Court held that the extension of municipal limits does not ipso facto make existing taxes applicable to the newly added areas. It ruled that for such areas, the tax is being imposed for the first time, necessitating strict adherence to the procedure prescribed by the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980. The Court emphasized that taxation cannot be imposed by implication and that residents of newly included areas must be afforded a statutory right to object to the proposed levy. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, declaring the demand for octroi duty unlawful absent a fresh notification and adherence to the prescribed taxation procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the extension of municipal limits automatically render existing municipal taxes applicable to the newly included areas?
  • Is a fresh notification and adherence to prescribed taxation rules required when imposing taxes on areas newly included within municipal limits?
  • Can a municipal committee impose taxes on newly annexed areas without providing residents an opportunity to object?
  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provide for the automatic extension of existing taxes to newly included areas?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Avari Hotel Limited vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution And1994 PLC 688 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s) Kshif Cement Corporation vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 345 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Asia Restaurant vs Asstt: Collector Central Excise And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 180 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• M/s National Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Federation ofK.L.R. 1994 Tax and Custom Cases 139 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan And Others vs T.D.a:1994 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Hussain Alias Pehalwani vs The StateKLR. 1994 Criminal Cases 370 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mutali vs Manzoora(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 58) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mutali vs Manzoora and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mutali vs Manzoora And Another1994 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Musthaq Ahmad Qureshi vs Brig. (Rotd.) Muhammad Ashraf Khan1994 MLD 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23
  civil revisionex parte proceedingspower of attorneysubstantial justiceprocedural irregularityspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  The present revision petition arises out of a civil suit for specific performance wherein the trial Court proceeded against the respondent ex parte upon his non-appearance, but subsequently accepted an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte proceedings based on an affidavit of an advocate. The petitioner challenged this order contending that the application was incompetent as it was filed by an advocate who had not filed his power of attorney. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the non-submission of a power of attorney along with an application to set aside ex parte proceedings is not fatal and merely amounts to a curable irregularity rather than rendering the application void. The Court established that technical rules should yield to the interests of substantial justice, and courts must lean in favour of adjudication on merits rather than stifling proceedings on technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-submission of a power of attorney along with an application to set aside ex parte proceedings renders the application void?
  • Is the failure to file a power of attorney at the initial presentation of an application a curable irregularity?
  • Should technical rules yield to the interest of substantial justice in civil proceedings?
  • Do courts lean in favour of adjudication on merits rather than stifling proceedings on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And Other vs Punjab Labour Appellate1994 PLC 571 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi And 2 Other vs Punjab1994 PLC 38 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Province of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 665 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad, Exgeneral Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production, Islamabad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad, Ex-General Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd_ vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan,1994 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad, Ex-General Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. vs The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC 454 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Musarrat Ahmad Dar vs Mst. Nighat Ghazala and 2 others1994 MLD 796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muratab Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Munshi Khan vs Mastay Khan And Other1994 CLC 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Munshi Jan Muhmmad vs Additional D.C. (G) And Other1994 CLC 399 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Through Chairman And 3 Other1994 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed And 2 Others vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, PAKISTANAnd Another1994 CLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed And 2 Others vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan And Another1994 CLC 20. · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 94) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Khan vs The Director, Accounts, C.T Region, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 282 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Munir & Co. vs Municipal Committee, Samundari1994 MLD 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Gujrat vs Nazar Masih And 3 Others1994 PLC 202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Munazza Khalil vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19
  rechecking of answer-booksexamination resultsHead Examiner powersre-evaluationwrit jurisdictionintra-court appealeducational board regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a student seeking re-evaluation of her examination papers. The appellant contended that reductions in marks made by the Head Examiner on her answer-books were invalid because they were not initialed or signed by the examiner. The core legal question was whether the absence of initials on the answer-book rendered the Head Examiner's revision of marks void, and whether the scope of 'rechecking' under the Board's regulations permitted a full re-evaluation of the papers. The Court held that the Head Examiner is not required to initial every deduction on the answer-book, provided the final award-list, which is signed and tallies with the marks, is accurate. The Court affirmed that the process of 'rechecking' is strictly limited to verifying totals, ensuring no answers were left unmarked, and confirming the integrity of the answer-book; it does not extend to re-evaluation of the academic judgment of examiners. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the appellant could not seek re-evaluation under the guise of rechecking.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Head Examiner required to initial every reduction of marks on an answer-book for the revision to be valid?
  • Does the process of 'rechecking' examination papers under Board regulations permit the re-evaluation of the academic assessment made by examiners?
  • Can a candidate challenge the reduction of marks by a Head Examiner if the final award-list is signed and consistent with the marks awarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Bokhari And Other vs Punjab Road Transport1994 PLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Munawar Begum vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 311 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz alias Mutti alias Nawab vs The State1994 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad Shah And Another vs National Press Trust And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 810 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantnewspaper employeelawful authoritytermination of servicemala fideappointment of chairman
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Executive Editor of a newspaper, challenged his suspension and subsequent dismissal from service by the National Press Trust. The core legal question was whether the individual who issued the impugned orders, claiming to be the Acting Chairman, possessed the lawful authority to do so, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable given the master-servant relationship. The Court held that the power to appoint the Chairman of the National Press Trust is vested exclusively in the President of Pakistan under the National Press Trust (Appointment of Chairman) Act, 1972. The Court found that the respondent had merely been asked to 'look after the affairs' of the Trust by a Ministry official, which did not constitute a valid appointment as Chairman. Consequently, the suspension and dismissal orders were declared void for lack of lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that newspaper employees are protected by the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, allowing them to invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 despite general master-servant principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to appoint the Chairman of the National Press Trust vest in the President of Pakistan?
  • Can a person merely asked to 'look after the affairs' of the National Press Trust exercise the powers of the Chairman?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a newspaper employee against termination of service?
  • Does the National Press Trust (Appointment of Chairman) Ordinance, 1972 provide for the appointment of an Acting Chairman?
  Read full judgment →
• MULAZ'm Hussain vs Mst. Amina Bibi And Another1994 CLC 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mukhtarul Hassan Siddioui vs Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi And 41994 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08
  maintenancewife maintenancechild maintenancedisobedient wifenashizamajor son maintenanceconstitutional petitionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions arising from a family court suit for maintenance filed by a wife and her children against the petitioner husband. The core legal questions involved whether a disobedient wife and major children are entitled to maintenance, and the quantum of maintenance for minor children. The Lahore High Court held that a disobedient wife ('Nashiza') who unjustifiably lives apart, prevents the husband from entering the matrimonial home, and instigates litigation against him is not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, a major, healthy son who is disobedient and has completed basic education is not entitled to maintenance from his father, though a minor child's right to maintenance remains intact. The Court laid down the principle that the right to maintenance is reciprocal to the obligation of obedience under Islamic injunctions and personal law, and that a father's duty to maintain major children or provide higher education is not absolute or ad infinitum, but depends on family status, the child's capacity, and filial conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disobedient wife who lives separately and denies her husband access to the home entitled to claim maintenance?
  • Whether a father is legally bound to provide maintenance to a major, healthy child who is disobedient and pursuing higher education?
  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to re-evaluating concurrent findings of fact rendered by family courts regarding the disobedience of a spouse?
  • Can a father be compelled to maintain children ad infinitum for higher education beyond the normal status and traditions of the family?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Beg And 5 Others vs Sardar Beg And Other1994 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar and others vs The State1994 MLD 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The StateK-L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 497 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Sajjad Hussain and others1994 MLD 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ur Rehman Shami vs Principal, Aitchison College, Lahore 3 And 2 Other1994 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16
  master and servantstatutory rulescivil court jurisdictiontermination of servicedeclaratory suitrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a declaratory suit filed by an Assistant Master at Aitchison College, Lahore, challenging his termination by the College Principal. The plaintiff argued that his terms of service were governed by the Statutes of Aitchison College, which only authorized a designated Sub-Committee, and not the Principal, to remove teaching staff. The trial court rejected the defendants' preliminary objections regarding the suit's maintainability, but the District Judge reversed this in revision, applying the master-and-servant doctrine. The High Court examined whether the College's statutes, framed by the Governor under Martial Law Order No. 86, possessed statutory force. The Court held that because the statutes were framed under legislative authority, they constituted statutory rules that ousted the general master-and-servant principle. Consequently, the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to examine violations of these statutory provisions. The High Court accepted the petition, declared the District Judge's revisional order to be without lawful authority, and restored the trial court's order to proceed with the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the master-and-servant doctrine apply when the terms and conditions of an employee are regulated by statutory rules?
  • Do rules framed by the Governor under a Martial Law Order possess the status of statutory rules?
  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to examine cases where statutory provisions governing employment have been violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadarif vs S.H.O.,. City Police, Depalpur And 5 Other1994 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cses 48 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Tariq Mahmood and 28 others1994 MLD 207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-28
  rejection of plaintabuse of process of courtre-litigationinherent powersrestitutioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner, which was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the trial Court along with compensatory costs, a decision upheld by the District Judge. The core legal question was whether a trial Court is strictly confined to the averments in the plaint when considering the rejection of a plaint, or if it can look beyond them to material such as written statements and prior judgments—specifically when a party attempts to re-litigate a matter already decided up to the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not exhaustive, and the Court can utilize section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to look at surrounding material and reject a plaint summarily to prevent the abuse of the process of the court when a matter has already attained finality through the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the rejection of a plaint?
  • Can a court look beyond the averments in the plaint, such as to the written statement and previous judicial proceedings, to reject a plaint summarily?
  • Is a fresh civil suit maintainable to re-agitate a matter that has already been finally adjudicated up to the level of the Supreme Court?
  • Can a court invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent the abuse of the process of the court by rejecting a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, GUJRANWALAAnd 3 Other1994 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala And 3 Other1994 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid vs The State1994 MLD 352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus Qamar vs Rubina and others1994 MLD 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →