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.

• Muhammad Akbar Etc vs Sher Muhammad Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 129) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate vs Chairman, Punjab Bar1994 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Cheema vs Superintendent Jail Kot LakhpatK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 238 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad and 7 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)/1994 MLD 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 521 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 MLD 673 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Aslam1994 CLC 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and1994 CLC 218 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs Ch. Abdul Rehman Wahla And Other1994 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And 40 Others vs Border Area Committee And Other1994 CLC 1416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 998 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Cheema vs Principal, Federal Covernment Degree1994 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Zaheer Ud Din Babar And Other1994 CLC 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01
  Constitutional petitionClosure of evidenceProduction of witnessesRent ControllerExecution of decreeCivil procedureRevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Rent Controller and an Additional District Judge, which resulted in the partial closure of the petitioner's evidence in an objection petition. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction by closing the evidence due to the petitioner's failure to produce witnesses, specifically whether the court was legally obligated to employ coercive measures to secure their attendance despite the petitioner having undertaken the responsibility to produce them. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned orders contained no jurisdictional error. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like Mst. Bashir Bibi and M/s. Naeem Engineering Corporation, noting that those cases involved situations where parties had requested the court's assistance to summon witnesses, whereas here, the petitioner had explicitly undertaken the responsibility to produce the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where a party voluntarily undertakes to produce witnesses, they cannot later fault the court for failing to use coercive measures when that party fails to fulfill their undertaking.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court close a party's evidence if that party fails to produce witnesses they explicitly undertook to produce?
  • Is a court required to issue coercive processes for witnesses when a party has voluntarily undertaken the responsibility to produce them?
  • Does the failure of a court to use coercive measures to secure witness attendance constitute a jurisdictional error when the party failed to fulfill an undertaking to produce said witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Nawaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Mumtaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 54) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali & Sons vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution And Others1994 PLC 686 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22
  writ petitionstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediesEmployees' Old-Age Benefits Actcompetency of petitionregistration dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of the petitioner under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The petitioner contended that the respondents misinterpreted Section 33 of the Act regarding the competency of complaints against registration. Conversely, the respondents argued that the petition was incompetent because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available under Chapter VII of the Act, asserting that complaints must be directed to the Board of Trustees rather than the court. The Court, relying on established precedent, held that a writ petition is rendered incompetent if a party has not first availed themselves of the statutory remedies provided under the Act. Drawing parallels to the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the Court affirmed that the statutory adjudication mechanism must be exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as incompetent, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue their remedies through the appropriate statutory channels under Chapter VII of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition competent if the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies provided under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Are the provisions of sections 57 to 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 in pari materia with sections 33 to 35 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq And Others: vs Taj Bibi1994 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Khan And Other vs Government of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khatoon vs Kanwar Sarbuland Khan And Other1994 CLC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khatoon and others vs Controller of Estate Duty1994 PTD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Mst. Irshad Bibi1994 CLC 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11
  declaratory suitplaint rejectionejectment proceedingsobjection petitionwaiver of remedyfraud and misrepresentationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, which rejected the petitioners' plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners, claiming ownership of a property, had previously filed an objection petition under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before the Rent Controller, which was dismissed. Instead of challenging that dismissal, the petitioners filed a separate declaratory suit, leading to the rejection of their plaint. The core legal question was whether a separate declaratory suit is maintainable after a party has already unsuccessfully pursued an objection petition before a Rent Controller regarding the same subject matter. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the suit was barred under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court affirmed the principle that once a litigant elects a particular legal remedy, other remedies are deemed waived. Furthermore, the Court noted that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is the appropriate mechanism to challenge orders obtained through fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Is a separate declaratory suit maintainable when a party has already unsuccessfully pursued an objection petition under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the doctrine of waiver apply when a litigant elects to pursue one specific legal remedy over others?
  • What is the appropriate legal mechanism for a stranger to proceedings to challenge an order allegedly obtained through fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenia vs Ahmed Jawad Sarwar1994 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-18
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanatguardian and wardsjurisdiction of High Courtwelfare of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the custody of her minor son, aged two and a half years, who was allegedly removed from her custody by the respondent father. The core legal questions concern the maintainability and scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. regarding the custody of minors when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are available, and whether the mother is entitled to 'Hizanat' of a child of tender age. The Lahore High Court held that the remedies under Section 491, Cr.P.C. and the Guardians and Wards Act are not mutually exclusive; Section 491 provides a speedy and efficacious remedy to restore a minor to the person improperly deprived of custody, without prejudice to a final adjudication by the Guardians Court. The Court established that a mother is entitled to the custody ('Hizanat') of a male child of tender age (two and a half years), and directed the restoration of the minor's custody to the mother while providing visitation rights to the father.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court entertain a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the custody of a minor when the Guardians and Wards Act provides an alternative remedy?
  • Are the jurisdictions under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act mutually exclusive?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's power to restore the custody of a minor of tender age to a mother under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right of 'Hizanat' entitle a mother to the custody of a two-and-a-half-year-old male child as against the father?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Rehmat Ali and 2 others1994 MLD 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Perveen and anothers vs S.H.O. and 2 others1994 MLD 328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tayyaba Bibi vs Administrator, M.C., Gojra And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Ichatoon vs Muhammad Din and others1994 MLD 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriaya Bibi And 6 Others vs Muhammad Siddique And 17 Other1994 CLC 955 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sofia Begum vs Secretary, Education Through Punjab Government, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 801 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqan Bibi And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 73 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharman Bibi vs The Chairman, Union Council Ram Thuman And 21994 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs The Chairman, Union Council Ram Thuman and 21994 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Muhammad Bashir1994 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan And Another vs O.S.D. And Another1994 CLC 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Yousaf vs Yousaf Masih1994 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Parveen vs Iftikhar Ahmad And Other1994 CLC 525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamsa Jabeen vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shagufta Yunus And Other vs Director, Education And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 163 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bibi And 2 Others vs Muhammad Yaqub And 2 Other1994 CLC 457 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Bibi vs Ali Sher And 2 Other1994 CLC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saleem Akhtar vs Nur Muhammad Khan And 4 Other1994 CLC 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saiqa vs The Judge, Family Court, Lahore and others1994 MLD 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Noor Muhammad1994 MLD 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum and others vs Additional Commissioner1994 MLD 213 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Sabohi Sarfraz vs Chairman, Arbitration Council1994 MLD 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqia Begum (Batool) vs Muahmmad Ishtiaq1994 CLC 705 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Akhtar vs Province of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan Bibi vs Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore1994 MLD 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20
  consolidation of holdingsjurisdiction of civil courtbar of jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionplaint rejectionsuo motu powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which modified the parties' land shares upon a revision petition filed by an unauthorized person on behalf of a respondent. The petitioner instituted a civil suit to set aside the Board's order, but the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing the bar of jurisdiction under sections 26 and 27 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The lower appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the present revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, holding that the civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the express statutory bar, and that consolidation matters fall exclusively within the domain of consolidation authorities. The court also noted that the Board of Revenue possesses wide suo motu revisional powers under section 13 of the Ordinance, allowing it to examine the record irrespective of procedural defects in private applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in matters relating to the consolidation of holdings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the Board of Revenue possess suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine consolidation proceedings independently of procedural defects in a revision petition?
  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the distribution and adjustment of lands carried out during consolidation operations?
  • What is the effect of an unauthorized person filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue when the Board possesses wide suo motu powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina Tahir vs Lt.Col. Azam Humayun1994 MLD 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Sultana vs Muhammad Iqbal1994 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana Tabbasam vs Amanullah and others1994 MLD 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi and 3 others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1994 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-01
  Qisas and DiyatCompromise in murder caseInherent powers of High CourtSection 561-A Cr.P.C.Finality of judgmentWaiver of QisasCriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased to implement a compromise reached with a convict, Muhammad Arshad, who had been convicted of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court, following the final disposal of an appeal, retains the jurisdiction to accept a compromise and grant acquittal in a murder case. The Court held that it possesses the requisite jurisdiction to accept such a compromise even after the finality of the judgment. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise, quashed the sentence, and acquitted the convict under Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that the right to waive Qisas or compound an offence under the Qisas and Diyat laws is not restricted to pending cases but remains operative until the execution of the sentence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allow it to give effect to such compromises to secure the ends of justice, even in decided cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court accept a compromise between parties in a murder case after the final disposal of an appeal?
  • Does the right to waive Qisas or compound an offence under the Qisas and Diyat laws expire upon the finality of a judgment?
  • Is the High Court empowered under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to give effect to a compromise in a criminal case after the case has been decided?
  • Which court is the appropriate forum to entertain an application for compounding an offence after the final disposal of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasul Bibi vs Nasrullah Khan1994 CLC 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20
  second appealgift mutationIslamic lawunfettered power of giftburden of proofmisreading of evidenceinheritance exclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This second civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff for setting aside a gift mutation of agricultural land executed by her deceased father in favour of her nephew, and for possession of her half-share as an heir. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the gift. Upon second appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether the gift was duly proved and whether the lower courts committed material misdirection by reading an unexhibited document into evidence. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were vitiated by serious misdirection, including the reliance on an unexhibited mutation document and failure to establish the voluntary presence of the donor before the Revenue Officer. Furthermore, the court held that under Islamic law, a sane Muslim owner possesses unfettered power to gift their property inter vivos to any person or heir, even with the intention of excluding other heirs, provided the gift is complete and not made during death-bed illness (marz-ul-maut). Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be set aside in second appeal if the courts misread or rely upon unexhibited documents?
  • Does a Muslim owner have the unfettered power under Islamic law to gift his property during his lifetime to an heir to the exclusion of other heirs?
  • Is a gift made by a Muslim during his lifetime invalid solely because its intention is to deprive legal heirs of expected inheritance devolution?
  • What is the effect of failing to formally tender a gift mutation into evidence during a civil trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasoolan Bibi vs A.C./D.S.C. (Land)1994 MLD 993 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Khanam and others vs Mst. Siraj Begum and others1994 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Bibi And Others vs Fateh Muhammad Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03
  civil revisionres judicatasettlement authoritiesabatement of writ petitioncompensation poolevacuee propertyabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that the petitioners were the owners of a house and that orders passed by Settlement Authorities were void. The petitioners, successors of a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, claimed the property was excluded from the compensation pool and thus not transferable. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit, noting that the original occupant had failed to comply with payment requirements, leading to the resumption and auction of the property. The High Court held that even if an administrative order is challenged as void, it remains capable of legal consequences until set aside by due process. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the petitioners' previous writ petition regarding the same subject matter had abated, they were barred from filing a fresh civil suit on the same cause of action. The Court affirmed that the general principles of res judicata apply to prevent the abuse of the process of law, barring the re-litigation of matters already adjudicated or concluded through abatement in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abatement of a writ petition under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent civil suit on the same cause of action?
  • Are administrative orders of Settlement Authorities capable of producing legal consequences even if they are alleged to be void?
  • Do the general principles of res judicata apply to prevent a party from re-agitating in a civil suit a matter that was previously the subject of a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar and 2 others vs Rafique Alam Butt and 4 others1994 MLD 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Khanum And Another vs Malik Azmat Ullah And Other1994 CLC 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nayyar Bano vs Haji Allah Rakha And Other1994 CLC 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi vs Haji Muhammad Amin1994 CLC 707 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs Atta Muhammad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 276 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs Atta Muhammad And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 276 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasima Faiz vs Abdul Rahim and 4 others1994 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhter vs Imam Din And 7 Other1994 CLC 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis Khatoon vs Director-General, Punjab Broadcasting1994 PLC (C.S.) 735 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munti vs Alam Khan1994 CLC 971 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Matlooban And Another vs Mst. Shakila Begum And 4 Other1994 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsood Bibi vs The State1994 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzoor Begum vs M.B.R.1994 MLD 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar Malik vs Lt: Col. (Retd.) M. Sadio Malik1994 CLC 811 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Mai vs The Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others1994 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28
  Khuladissolution of marriagefamily lawconstitutional petitionmarital discordright to divorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the dismissal of a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage by the Family Court and the appellate court, which had rejected her plea for Khula. The petitioner contended that she had developed an unbridgeable aversion to her husband, rendering it impossible to live within the limits prescribed by Allah. The core legal question was whether the courts below erred in refusing a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula despite the wife's persistent claim of hatred and inability to live with her husband. The High Court held that the right to claim divorce on the basis of Khula is a right at par with the husband's right to pronounce Talaq, requiring the court to satisfy its conscience regarding the impossibility of the spouses living together. The court concluded that a woman cannot be forced to remain in a marriage where she has developed genuine, deep-seated aversion. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula, emphasizing that subjective satisfaction of the court regarding the breakdown of the marital tie is paramount.

  Questions settled

  • Is the wife's right to claim divorce on the basis of Khula equivalent to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq?
  • Does a court have the authority to dissolve a marriage on the basis of Khula if the wife expresses a genuine, deep-seated aversion to her husband?
  • Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula if the lower courts have failed to properly assess the breakdown of the marital tie?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khudeja and others vs Allah Dad1994 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khalida Parveen vs Ghulam Rasul1994 MLD 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Ul Kubra vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 489 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karam Begum and others vs D.S.C. and others1994 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs Ghulam Mustafa1994 MLD 174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Maryam alias Kaneez Fatima vs The Settlement1994 MLD 953 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jiwai (Deceased) Through L.Rs. vs Rehman (Deceased) Through L.Rs.1994 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07
  Regular Second AppealInheritanceConduct evidencePaternityQanun-e-ShahadatEvidence ActConcurrent findingsSpecial means of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, which denied the appellant’s claim to inherit property as the daughter of the deceased, Kalu. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established her paternity through cogent evidence, specifically invoking the doctrine of 'conduct evidence' under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence. The Court determined that the appellant’s witnesses failed to demonstrate special means of knowledge or provide consistent testimony, and the documentary evidence was insufficient. The Court laid down that Section 50/Article 64 permits circumstantial 'conduct evidence' as an exception to the best evidence rule, provided the witness has special means of knowledge and the conduct reveals an opinion regarding the relationship. However, such evidence is not conclusive and must be weighed by the court to determine the factum probandum. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld as they did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for admitting 'conduct evidence' under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 or Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Does the opinion evidence regarding relationship under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 or Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 constitute conclusive proof of paternity?
  • Can a witness without special means of knowledge provide admissible 'conduct evidence' regarding a family relationship?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum and others vs Sh. Muhammad Bashir and others1994 MLD 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irram Cheema vs Auqaf Department1994 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Begum vs Additional District Judge and 9 others1994 MLD 599 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Bibi vs District Judge1994 MLD 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamidan Bibi vs Sadar Din and 4 others1994 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum And Others vs Haji Abdul Ghani And Another1994 CLC 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and another1994 MLD 801 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14
  allotment of landMangla Dam ousteeslocus poenitentiaeprohibitory zonewrit jurisdictionState landlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions arising from a dispute over the allotment of State land reserved for Mangla Dam oustees. The petitioner, an oustee, was allotted land in Sargodha, which was subsequently challenged by a respondent claiming temporary cultivating possession and asserting the land fell within a prohibited five-mile radius of the Municipal Committee. The Board of Revenue had previously set aside the allotment, citing the prohibitory zone. The core legal question was whether the Government could cancel a valid allotment on the ground of a prohibitory zone notification when the land had already been placed in the allotment pool for oustees. The Court held that the inclusion of the land in the allotment pool superseded prior prohibitory notifications. Furthermore, the Court invoked the principle of locus poenitentiae, ruling that once an allotment is made in good faith, the Government cannot arbitrarily rescind it. The Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, set aside the revision order, and dismissed the respondent's petition for lack of locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of land in an allotment pool for oustees supersede prior notifications imposing a prohibitory zone on that land?
  • Can the Government invoke Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 to rescind an allotment once it has been made in good faith?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to prevent the arbitrary cancellation of a land allotment by the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Chiragh Muhammad Khan and others1994 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghaus Bibi vs Government of Punjab Through Member (Colonies), Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Other1994 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs Said Muhammad And 5 Other1994 CLC 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatema Bibi vs Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Government1994 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Naz vs Umar Hayat and others1994 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dauli And Others vs Mst. Rasulan And Other1994 CLC 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum vs Haji Ghulam Rasool1994 CLC 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi vs The State1994 MLD 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhan vs Mst. Bhag Bhari and 2 others1994 MLD 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azmat Through Legal Heirs vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 976 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aslam Khatoon vs Muhammad Shafiq1994 CLC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arifa Parveen vs Muhammad Ameen Puri And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amira Bokharir vs Faqir Syed Jameel Ud Din Bokhari And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amira Bokhari vs Faqir Syed Jameeluddin Bomar' and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →