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.

• Mst. Amanat Bibi vs Khuda Dad And Other1994 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Jawai and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1994 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nasreen John vs Sister Mary John William Bibi1994 PLC (C.S.) 792 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Moman vs Chief Land Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Tufail vs Nasir Mahmood EtcK.L.R. 1994 Crimial Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hussain vs Ilyas EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Fayyaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mohabbat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• Miss Karim Hamid vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Miss Babra Sharif vs Commissioner of Income Tax1994 PTD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Misri Khan vs Settlement Commissioner1994 CLC 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Yaqub vs Zaman Mehdi1994 MLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Fayyaz Brig vs Hafiz Abdul Yousaf And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mirza Arif Baig vs Mubarik AliK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza Akram Baig vs Ahmad Saeed Mirza1994 CLC 2264 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman Khan Through Legal Heirs vs Ajaib Sultan And 9 Other1994 CLC 991 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mir Ilauddin vs D.C. and others1994 MLD 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Ibrahim vs Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust1994 CLC 1158 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Akram vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 397 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mian Mehraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mian M. Azam And Others vs Commissioner, Lahore Division1994 CLC 131 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 405 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Farooq Ahmad Shaikh and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1994 MLD 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Qadoos vs Faqirullah Minhas and others1994 MLD 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-17
  civil revisiontransfer of civil casejudicial biasdiscretionary jurisdictionlack of confidencematerial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an order passed by the District Judge, Sheikhupura, which rejected the petitioner's application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the transfer of a pending civil suit. The petitioner alleged that the presiding Civil Judge was being influenced by the respondents and had expressed bias, claiming that the petitioner could not expect justice. Although the Civil Judge indicated he had no objection to the transfer due to the parties' lack of confidence, the District Judge exercised his discretion to refuse the transfer, finding no valid grounds. Upon review, the High Court held that the District Judge committed no material irregularity or illegality in exercising his discretionary jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that a judge's willingness to have a case transferred, based solely on the parties' assertions of no confidence, does not constitute a sufficient legal ground for transfer. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, as no case for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presiding judge's statement that they have no objection to a case transfer constitute a sufficient ground for transferring the case?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a District Judge's discretionary order refusing to transfer a case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if no material irregularity is shown?
  • Are mere assertions of bias and lack of confidence by parties sufficient grounds to warrant the transfer of a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Majeed And Others vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Miss Babra Sharif vs Commissioner of Income TaxPTCL 1994 CL. 167 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sunrise Textiles Limited vs Messrs Tomen Corporation And 41994 CLC 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14
  Arbitration ActStay of proceedingsTemporary injunctionStatus quoCivil revisionAncillary ordersFunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged a trial court order that vacated a previously granted status quo order upon staying the suit proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal question was whether a civil court, having stayed a suit for reference to arbitration, loses jurisdiction to maintain or issue ancillary interim orders like temporary injunctions. The High Court held that the trial court retains jurisdiction to pass such ancillary orders, including temporary injunctions, under Section 41(b) read with the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. The court emphasized that staying proceedings does not render the court functus officio regarding the protection of the property. Furthermore, the court ruled that vacating an existing injunction without notice and a hearing to the affected party constitutes an injudicious exercise of judicial power. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the application for a temporary injunction was remanded for a fresh decision on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court lose jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions after staying proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Can a trial court vacate a status quo order without providing notice or a hearing to the affected party?
  • Does the court retain the power to pass ancillary orders for the preservation of property under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act 1940 after referring a dispute to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahi Bottlers Limited vs Khushi Muhammad And Others1994 PLC 368 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Service Industries Ltd. vs Tariq Jamal And Another1994 CLC 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rupali Polyester Ltd. vs Dr. Nael G. Bunni and others1994 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rupali Polyester Ltd vs Dr. Nael G: Bunni And Other1994 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pacific Pharmaceuticals Limited Through Director vs The Assistant Drugs Controller, Lahore And 2 Other1994 CLC 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Overseas Transit Agency (Private) Ltd. vs Messrs Tech. Pak.1994 CLC 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Cotton Ginners and anothers vs Messrs Granulars1994 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Cotton Ginners And Another vs Messrs Granulars1994 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan, Central Board of Revenue And 2 Other1994 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20
  speaking orderquasi-judicial authorityexcise dutysales taxwastage allowanceremandapplication of mindconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a beverage manufacturer, challenged orders from the Collector (Appeals) and the Federal Government concerning the assessment of excise duty and sales tax. The authorities had rejected the petitioner's claim for a higher wastage allowance (12.06%) based on an outdated plant, instead applying a 6% rate. The core legal question was whether the appellate and revisional authorities failed to provide reasoned, 'speaking orders' by ignoring the petitioner's evidence, specifically a 1987 inspection report. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were laconic, sketchy, and lacked a proper application of mind. The Court established that authorities exercising quasi-judicial statutory powers must pass speaking orders that demonstrate due consideration of the facts and law. Because the authorities failed to address the specific plea regarding the 1987 inspection report—which post-dated previous litigation on the same issue—the orders were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision after considering all relevant evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers in appeal or revision have a legal obligation to pass a speaking order?
  • Can an appellate or revisional authority ignore specific evidence presented by a party without providing reasons for doing so?
  • Does a failure to address a material plea in an administrative order render it without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Munir & Company vs Municipal Committee, Samundari1994 PLC (C.S.) 275 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Montgomery Flour and General Mills vs Commissioner, Punjab1994 PLC 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gulshan Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fatima Girls High School through Mehboob Hamid and 2 others1994 MLD 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ellahi Brothers Ltd. vs The C.I.T., Lahore1994 PTD 716 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Crescent Jute Products Limited vs Province of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 311 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. vs Muhammad Yousaf1994 MLD 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adam Holding Ltd. vs A.C., Customs1994 CLC 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15
  customs dutyprovisional assessmentsurchargedetention of goodsvaluation disputeconstitutional petitionbill of entry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court arose from a dispute regarding the demand for surcharge on imported goods detained by customs authorities. The petitioner imported instant coffee, part of which was released provisionally while the remainder was detained pending a final valuation decision by the customs department. Following a delayed final assessment which reduced the loading charges, the customs authorities issued a notice under section 111 of the Customs Act demanding surcharge for failure to clear the goods within the prescribed time. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to claim surcharge for warehousing goods beyond the prescribed period when the delay was attributable to the authorities themselves. The Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for the time taken by the authorities to finalize the valuation, especially when the provisional assessment amounts had been duly paid. Consequently, the Court declared the demand for surcharge to be without lawful authority and ordered a refund of the deposited surcharge and excess duties, thereby establishing that authorities cannot claim surcharge for delays caused by their own protracted adjudication processes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether customs authorities can claim surcharge for warehousing goods beyond the prescribed period when the delay in clearance is caused by the department's own pending valuation proceedings?
  • Is an importer liable to pay surcharge under the Customs Act when the delay is attributable to the authorities taking time to finalize assessments?
  • Whether an importer who pays the amount due under a provisional assessment is at fault for goods remaining detained pending a final decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• Mehrban Ali vs Habib Khan1994 MLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mehran vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan, Additional1994 CLC 1079 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din and 8 others vs Siraj Din1994 MLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mehra And Others vs Abdul Qayyum And Other1994 CLC 356 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mehr Zulf1qar Ali Babu And Others vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ghulam Dastgir vs Dr. M. Shabbir Khan1994 CLC 348 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Border Area Allotment Committee, Lahore1994 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Abdul Rahim and others1994 MLD 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan vs M. SharifK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Elahi vs WAPDA And Other1994 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mehar Hussain and others vs The State and another1994 MLD 840 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Ltd. Through Managing Director1994 PLC (C.S.) 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan vs Imtiaz Begum, And Other1994 CLC 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-21Read full judgment →
• Matloob Ahmed And Another vs Muhammad Zaman1994 CLC 279 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mateen Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 273 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• Master Muhammad Ilyas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Masoom Akhtar vs Rent Controller, Lahore And Another1994 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Masih Ullah Khan and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority1994 MLD 603 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15
  constitutional petitionhousing schemechange of land useright of audiencenatural justiceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises from the conversion of a plot originally reserved for a mosque in the sanctioned Sahgal Estate housing scheme, Lahore, into a site for a Darsgah by the Lahore Development Authority. The petitioners, representing a residents' welfare society, challenged the decision on the ground that it was made without providing them an opportunity of being heard. The Lahore High Court held that the alteration of a housing scheme to the detriment of existing plot owners cannot be made without affording them a hearing, as established in prior jurisprudence. Consequently, the court set aside the decision and remanded the matter to the Lahore Development Authority for fresh consideration after hearing the affected parties, directing a decision within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Can a housing scheme site reserved for a mosque be converted to another purpose without hearing the affected plot owners?
  • Does the alteration of a housing scheme to the detriment of existing owners require prior notice and opportunity of hearing?
  • Whether the Lahore Development Authority is required to hear residents before changing the utility of public plots in a sanctioned private housing scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Maryam Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases l2 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-30Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs S.M. Elahi, Additional District Judge and 2 others1994 MLD 596 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional1994 MLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad Alias Sooda vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 407 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• Maqbool vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Alias Qooli Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Sessions Judge, Kasur and others1994 MLD 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and others vs The State1994 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory vs Collector, Central Excise and Customs1994 CLC 2266 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd vs Collector Central Excise &K.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 156 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi Etc vs Ghulam Hussain(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 121) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi And Others vs Ghulam Hussain1994 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Nazir Ahmad And Other1994 CLC 2443 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-01
  inherent powersabuse of processfrivolous litigationvexatious litigationquashment of civil suitprofessional misconductres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the quashment of a civil suit pending before a Civil Judge. The petitioner, having been subjected to decades of repetitive, frivolous, and vexatious litigation by the respondents regarding the same agricultural land, argued that the current suit constituted an abuse of the court's process. The Court observed that the respondents had filed numerous suits, appeals, and revisions despite previous dismissals and adverse findings, demonstrating a clear intent to harass the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the inherent power to quash civil proceedings that amount to an abuse of process. The Court held that it does have such power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, analogous to its powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court quashed the pending civil proceedings, noting that such measures are necessary to prevent the erosion of the judicial system by unscrupulous litigants and their facilitating counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to quash civil proceedings?
  • Does the filing of repetitive, frivolous suits regarding the same subject matter constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can the High Court initiate disciplinary action against legal practitioners for facilitating frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and others vs Rent Controller and others1994 MLD 616 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mansha vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 218 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs Nawab And Other1994 CLC 2208 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21
  civil revisiongeneral power of attorneyfraudsale mutationframing of issuesremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents against the petitioner concerning landed property, alleging that sale mutations were fraudulently sanctioned through an unauthorized general power of attorney. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court affirmed the decision, leading to the present revision. The core legal question is whether the courts below failed to frame and determine the real matter in controversy, specifically regarding the execution and validity of the general power of attorney. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to perform its statutory duty of framing a necessary issue on the validity of the power of attorney, which constitutes an illegal and materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision after framing the appropriate issue and recording evidence thereon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial court to frame an issue on the real controversy between the parties warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a general issue regarding fraud sufficiently cover the specific question of the validity and execution of a general power of attorney?
  • Is it the duty of the trial court to frame correct issues necessary for the determination of the real controversy regardless of whether the parties point it out?
  Read full judgment →
• Manir Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Manager, Associated Press of Pakistan vs P.L.A.T. And Others1994 PLC 355 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mamin Farooq vs The Vice Chancellor University of Engineering &K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 422 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mallah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 46 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Malik Nasim Ahmad Aheer And 4 Others vs Water and Power1994 CLC 1315 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Younis and others vs M/s. Splendours International1994 MLD 916 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Shabbir vs Ghulam Mustafa and 5 others1994 MLD 572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nazir vs National Bank1994 MLD 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Sardar ShahK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 284 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Anwar vs Punjab Labour Court N0.2 And Others1994 PLC 354 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Irshad Ahmad vs The Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 836 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub-1994 PLC (C.S.) 871 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Faqir Muhammad And Others vs Ch. Ghulam Nabi And Other1994 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Aslam Pervez, Advocate vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Auqaf Department, Lahore and 15 others1994 MLD 1986 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17
  waqf propertychief administrator auqaf99-year leasemutwalli powersmala fidesconstitutional petitionauqaf departmentabuse of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the action of the Chief Administrator of Auqaf in leasing out 53 Kanals and 17 Marlas of valuable urban Waqf land to department employees and officials, including the Chief Administrator himself, on a 99-year lease at a nominal rent of Re. 1 per Marla per month. The core legal question was whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf possesses the authority to grant perpetual or 99-year leases of Waqf properties to department functionaries under the guise of an employee welfare scheme, and whether such discretion was exercised lawfully and in the best interest of the Waqf. The Lahore High Court held that the 99-year lease virtually amounted to a sale, was tainted with mala fides, and was an unauthorized abuse of power designed to benefit officials at the expense of the Waqf. The Court ruled that the Chief Administrator acts merely as a manager (Mutwalli/Ameen) and any discretion to lease Waqf property for over three years must be exercised objectively and strictly in the best interest of the Waqf property, not for personal enrichment or employee accommodation. The impugned leases were declared illegal, void, and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf has the authority to grant a 99-year lease of Waqf property to department employees at a nominal rent?
  • Can the exercise of discretion by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under Rule 7 of the West Pakistan Wakf Properties (Administration) Rules, 1960 to lease property for more than three years be challenged as arbitrary or mala fide?
  • What is the legal status and position of the Chief Administrator of Auqaf regarding the ownership and management of Waqf properties?
  • Whether a lease of Waqf property that virtually amounts to a permanent transfer or sale is permissible under statutory provisions and Muslim Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mahndi vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1994 MLD 686 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15
  Order II Rule 2Specific Relief ActRes JudicataConsequential reliefRejection of plaintConstitutional petitionMaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the lower courts' refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner argued that a subsequent suit for possession was barred by Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, because the plaintiffs' previous suit for declaration and injunction had been dismissed for failing to claim consequential relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court held that the subsequent suit was not barred. It established that for the bar under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to apply, the previous suit must have been decided on merits. Since the previous suit was dismissed merely for a defective form due to the omission of a consequential relief, it did not constitute a decision on merits. Consequently, the dismissal of the earlier suit did not preclude the plaintiffs from filing a fresh, properly framed suit for possession. The impugned orders of the lower courts were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a suit for declaration for failure to claim consequential relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 bar a subsequent suit for possession under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a dismissal of a suit for a defective form considered a decision on merits for the purposes of applying the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the three conditions required to attract the bar of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to a subsequent suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →