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.

• Mahmood Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad and others vs The State1994 MLD 331 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ma. Akmal Through Legal Heirs vs Mian Waheed Ud Din, O.S.D., Bor And Other1994 CLC 107 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• M.Y. Malik & Co. vs Splendours (International Regd.)1994 MLD 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
• M.Saeed vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• M.S. Lion Industries and Re Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Limited Through Chief1994 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• M.S. Hameed Masood and Associates, Multan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1994 PTD 927 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
• M.R. Khalid vs Government of the Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02
  pro forma promotionadverse entriesACRconstitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictionfitness for promotioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civil servant challenging a departmental decision declining his request for pro forma promotion in BS-19 with retrospective effect and subsequent promotion to BS-20. The core legal question was whether the departmental authority could lawfully rely on uncommunicated, expunged, or previously condoned adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports to refuse pro forma promotion, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 to examine the matter despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that uncommunicated and expunged adverse entries could not be legally considered, and where an administrative decision is based on multiple grounds, some of which are legally unsustainable, the entire decision is vitiated as bad reasons cannot be separated from good ones. The Court declared the impugned decision without lawful authority, remanded the matter for reconsideration, and established that uncommunicated or expunged ACR entries must be completely ignored in promotion matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can uncommunicated adverse remarks in a civil servant's ACR be taken into consideration for denying promotion?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to examine the validity of a promotion decision where an appeal is barred before the Service Tribunal under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act?
  • What is the legal effect on an administrative decision when it is based on a mixture of valid and invalid grounds which cannot be severed?
  • Can adverse entries that were previously overlooked when granting a prior grade promotion be subsequently utilized to deny pro forma promotion to a higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• M.Nadeem Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
• M.M. Traders through Proprietor and anothers vs Muslim Commercial1994 MLD 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• M.C. Gujrat And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 126 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• M. Yousaf vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 84) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• M. Siddique Subedar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• M. Mushtaq vs A. Rashid and others1994 MLD 987 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• M. Hanif vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 MLD 69 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• M. Arshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• M. Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• M. Afzal Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• M. Aftab Saioal vs Station House Officer, Police Station North Cantt., Lahore and 9 others1994 MLD 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-29
  cancellation of FIRright of hearingpower of attorneymemorandum of appearancemagistrate powersintra-court appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a Single Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders of an Ilaqa Magistrate cancelling three criminal cases (F.I.Rs) on police reports and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the reports and pass speaking orders after hearing the parties. The appellants contended that the writ petitions were decided without formal notice to them, as four of the appellants were abroad and had not authorized the counsel who appeared. They also argued that, under established precedent, a Magistrate is not required to hear the parties before cancelling an F.I.R. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that under Order III Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a pleader cannot act or plead without a written authority or a memorandum of appearance, which was absent here. Consequently, the appellants were deprived of a hearing. Furthermore, the Court held that while a Magistrate must act judicially, fairly, and pass a reasoned order when cancelling a case, there is no statutory duty to hear the parties. The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Single Bench for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pleader legally act or plead on behalf of a party without filing a written power of attorney or a memorandum of appearance under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an Ilaqa Magistrate legally required to afford a hearing to the parties before passing an order to cancel a registered criminal case on a police report?
  • What are the essential duties of a Magistrate when considering a police report for the cancellation of an F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Hassan Safdar vs Malik Shabbir Ahmed And Another1994 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13
  ejectment petitionpersonal usebona fide requirementCantonments Rent Restriction Actco-ownerunauthorized conversionlandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of an ejectment petition filed by a landlord against a tenant for a shop in Rawalpindi Cantonment. The core legal questions were whether the landlord required the premises for personal use in good faith and whether the petition was maintainable given the absence of a two-year notice required for restaurant premises under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Court held that the landlord’s testimony, read as a whole, sufficiently established bona fide personal need, noting that the statutory provision for restitution if the landlord fails to occupy the premises acts as a safeguard against mala fide claims. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a tenant’s unauthorized conversion of a shop into a restaurant does not alter the legal classification of the premises to trigger specific statutory notice requirements. Additionally, the Court affirmed that a single co-owner is competent to file an ejectment petition. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court’s order was set aside, and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a single co-owner file an ejectment petition against a tenant without impleading other co-owners?
  • Does a tenant's unauthorized conversion of a shop into a restaurant change the legal nature of the premises for the purpose of statutory notice requirements?
  • Is a landlord's statement on oath regarding personal need sufficient to establish bona fide requirement in an ejectment petition?
  • Does the failure to serve a two-year notice for restaurant premises render an ejectment petition non-maintainable if the premises were not originally let as a restaurant?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) M. Zahoor Ul Haq vs Quarter Master General And Other1994 CLC 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06
  stud farm leaseanimal breeding conditionsColonization of Government Landsrenewal of leasevested rightsadministrative discretionBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the reduction of land area upon the expiration and subsequent regrant of stud farm leases initially granted under the Animal Breeding Conditions. The core legal questions concerned whether the government could unilaterally alter lease conditions, including reducing land size, upon the expiry of the original term, and whether the grantees possessed a vested right to renewal. The Court held that the original leases were for a fixed term and expired automatically; therefore, any renewal constituted a fresh grant rather than a continuation of the previous tenancy. Consequently, the government retained the absolute right to modify conditions, including the size of the stud, upon renewal. The Court affirmed that the Board of Revenue, under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is empowered to issue and amend statements of conditions for such grants. It was further held that the government's policy guidelines for regrants were based on objective, non-arbitrary criteria, and the petitioners failed to establish any infringement of a vested right. The petitions were dismissed, subject to specific directions regarding crop harvesting and land surrender.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lessee have a vested right to the renewal of a lease granted under the Animal Breeding Conditions upon the expiry of the original term?
  • Is the Board of Revenue empowered to issue or modify statements of conditions for land grants under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
  • Does the reduction of land area upon the regrant of a lease constitute an illegal resumption of land?
  • Can the government, in its capacity as a lessor, unilaterally change the terms and conditions of a lease upon its renewal?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Cal. (Retd.) Ijaz Ali Khan vs (Mst.) Shaheen 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
• Lipton Pakistan Ltd. And Others vs Mubarik Ali1994 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The Magistrate 1ST Class, Sahiwal and 3 others1994 MLD 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali And 2 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Latif Asghar And 11 Other vs The Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Lars Costa Adhom vs The C.I.T., Rawalpindi1994 PTD 590 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17
  double taxation avoidancetax exemptionnon-resident technicianSwedish nationalincome tax referencemisreading of agreementemployment status
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of civil references concerning the taxability of incidental charges received by non-resident Swedish nationals who were employed by a Swedish company and deputed to supervise the erection of a plant in Pakistan under an agreement with a Pakistani company. The core legal question was whether the assessee technicians were entitled to tax exemption under the double taxation avoidance agreement between Pakistan and Sweden on the ground that they were acting on behalf of the Swedish company. The Lahore High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal misread and misinterpreted the agreements by failing to consider crucial clauses establishing that the personnel remained employees of the contractor Swedish company during their stay. Consequently, the Court ruled that the technicians qualified for tax exemption under Article 13 of the agreement as their stay did not exceed 183 days and they performed services for and on behalf of a resident of Sweden. Both reference questions were answered in the negative and against the department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee technician acting on behalf of a foreign company is entitled to tax exemption under the Agreement between Pakistan and Sweden for avoidance of double taxation of income?
  • Whether the Income Tax Officer's action in imposing tax on incidental charges of non-resident technicians was right at law?
  • Whether personnel deputed by a foreign contractor to supervise installation work in Pakistan remain employees of the contractor or the local customer for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Lango vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 52) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Langar and others vs Ch. Muhammad Shafi and others1994 MLD 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26
  limitation periodsuit for possessiondeclaratory suitmutationhandwriting expertevidentiary valuerevenue recordfraud and forgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for possession of agricultural land, wherein the plaintiff challenged sale mutations sanctioned in 1967 and 1969 as fraudulent. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred and if the plaintiff had successfully established the alleged fraud. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred. Since the defendants were recorded as owners in possession in revenue records, the plaintiff was legally obligated to seek a declaration of title within the six-year limitation period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove the mutation was fraudulent. It emphasized that a photocopy of a handwriting expert's report, sourced from a police file without summoning the expert or obtaining a certified copy from judicial records, possesses no evidentiary value in civil litigation. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court's findings, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proof, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession is maintainable when the defendant is recorded as owner in possession in revenue records?
  • Is a photocopy of a handwriting expert's report from a police file admissible as evidence in a civil suit without summoning the expert?
  • What is the limitation period for challenging a sale mutation in a suit for declaration of title?
  • Does the failure to challenge revenue record entries within the statutory period bar a subsequent suit for possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Lala And Others vs Ditta And Other1994 CLC 54 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan And Another vs Rehmat1994 CLC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Vice-Chancellor And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantdate of birth disputesuperannuationservice recordwrongful retirementstatutory rules and regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of an order retiring the petitioner from service, effective retrospectively, based on a disputed date of birth. The core legal question was whether the respondent university could unilaterally alter the petitioner's date of birth recorded in his service book to force early retirement, and whether the relationship between the parties was strictly governed by the 'Master and Servant' doctrine, thereby barring constitutional relief. The Court held that the respondents failed to substantiate the alleged date of birth with credible evidence, noting that the service book consistently recorded the petitioner's date of birth as 1933, a fact corroborated by official correspondence with an insurance company. The Court rejected the 'Master and Servant' argument, establishing that because the petitioner's employment was regulated by statutory rules and regulations, the employer lacked absolute, uncontrolled power to terminate service at whim. Consequently, the retirement order was declared without lawful authority, and the petitioner was reinstated with full benefits, as the Court affirmed that an employee cannot be prejudiced by the failure of authorities to properly authenticate service records.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally alter an employee's date of birth in the service record without credible evidence?
  • Does the 'Master and Servant' doctrine apply when an employee's service is governed by statutory rules and regulations?
  • Can an employee be prejudiced by the failure of the employer's authorities to properly sign or authenticate entries in a service book?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a university when the employment terms are regulated by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bakhsh alias Labu vs The State1994 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Lal alias Laloo vs The State1994 MLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Lakhey Khan And Others vs A.C./D.C./Additional Settlement1994 CLC 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad1994 CLC 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kraft General Foods Inc. vs Abid Anjum, Manager_Partner_Proprietor, Tango Enterprises and 3 others1994 MLD 607 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Mazhar Hussain1994 PLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 994 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14
  central excise dutyrefund of excess dutymistake of lawproduction capacity ruleslimitation periodwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a textile mills company, manufactured cotton yarn and fabrics alongside manmade synthetic yarn using the same plant machinery, paying excise duty under the Production Capacity Rules as well as under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Seeking a declaration that double duty on manmade yarn was recovered without lawful authority, the petitioner demanded a refund of excess duty paid from May 1968 to June 1978. The respondents conceded that excise duty on manmade fabrics was not legally chargeable but argued that the refund claim for the period beyond one year was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 11 applies only to clerical errors, arithmetical calculations, or inadvertence, and does not govern taxes paid under a mistake of law or compulsion, which are instead recoverable under section 72 of the Contract Act subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908, running from the date of the discovery of the mistake. The writ petition was allowed, directing the refund of excess duty for the period of three years prior to the date of demand.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 apply to claims for refund of excise duty paid under a mistake of law or compulsion?
  • What limitation period governs a claim for the refund of taxes paid under a mistake of law?
  • Can double excise duty be charged on manmade synthetic yarn produced on the same spindles and machinery already assessed to duty under production capacity rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Ltd. Faisalabad. vs Govt, Of Pakistan Through Secretaiy, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 280 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And Other vs Bashir Ahmad And OtherK.L.R 1994 Revenue Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 4 others vs Bashir Ahmad and 8 others1994 MLD 791 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And 2 Others vs Allah Bakhsh And 2 Other1994 CLC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 14 others vs A.C./D.S.C./Additional Settlement1994 MLD 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam Alias Bau vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs Masooda Begum And Other1994 CLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bukhsh And Another vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Ghani And Other1994 C L. C 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Farooq vs United Bank Limited, Mul Tan1994 CLC 276 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Khanun And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 CLC 987 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 123) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-18Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Medical Superintendent And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 188 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Director, Employees' Old-Age Pension1994 PLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Abdul Rashid And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Ameer Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Uz-Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 525 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs The State1994 MLD 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Allah Rakhi and another1994 MLD 119 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Saleem vs Government of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 277 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rafi Malik vs Election Tribunal and others1994 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Maiimood vs Abdul Qadir Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 392 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Khalid vs Secretary, Government of Punjab And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 438 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Additional District Judge And 2 Other1994 CLC 517 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1994 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain And Another vs Director, Trade Organization, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad And 4 Other1994 CLC 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02
  election processvoters listTrade Organizations Ordinancejudicial reviewelection scheduleconstitutional petitionChamber of Commerce
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenged the interference by the Ministry of Commerce and an appointed supervisor in the ongoing election process of the Gujranwala Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The core legal question was whether the authorities possessed the power to intervene in an advanced election process, specifically by scrutinizing and revising the voters' list after the election schedule had been announced and implemented. The Court held that the directive issued by the Ministry of Commerce on 23-2-1994, which authorized the supervisor to scrutinize and finalize the voters' list at an advanced stage, was illegal and unauthorized. The Court reasoned that the supervisor's role was limited to ensuring free and fair elections according to the pre-existing schedule, not to disrupt or suspend the process. The judgment established that once an election schedule is announced and the process is underway, external authorities cannot intervene to alter fundamental aspects like the voters' list, as statutory remedies exist under Section 9 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance to challenge election irregularities post-facto. Consequently, the election process was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election supervisor appointed by the Ministry of Commerce scrutinize and revise a voters' list after the election schedule has been announced?
  • Does the Ministry of Commerce have the authority to suspend an ongoing election process of a Chamber of Commerce to address complaints about the voters' list?
  • Is the remedy for challenging an election voters' list available during the election process or only after its completion?
  Read full judgment →
• Kh. Shafqat Hussain and others vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1994 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• KH. Iftikhar Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs The State1994 MLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and others vs Ghulam Shabbir and others1994 MLD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala And Other1994 CLC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain vs A.D J. EtcK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 340 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• Kamir and 2 others vs Mst. Shamim and 4 others1994 MLD 2139 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Kalla Khan vs Yasin And Other1994 CLC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Jhanda through Legal Heir vs Muhammad Younas1994 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07
  undue influenceevacuee propertysale of propertyconsiderationburden of proofpower of attorneysecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from a suit for possession of an evacuee shop filed by the legal heir of the deceased transferor against the defendant-vendee, alleging that the sale-deed was procured through undue influence and without consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the transaction tainted by undue influence and lack of consideration, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The core legal questions involved the standard of proof and pleadings required to establish undue influence under contract law, and whether the circumstances demonstrated domination of the transferor's will or absence of consideration. The Lahore High Court held that mere assertions of a friendly relationship, old age, or assistance with meals are insufficient to establish undue influence or a fiduciary relationship without clear pleadings and proof of domination of will or unfair advantage. The Court ruled that the transaction was voluntary, supported by valid consideration through the adjustment of compensation books, and that the plaintiff failed to prove the grounds of challenge. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish a plea of undue influence in a property transaction?
  • Does a mere friendly relationship or providing meals to an elderly person raise a presumption of undue influence or fiduciary relationship?
  • Can a sale transaction be invalidated on the ground of undue influence without specific pleadings detailing the manner of its exercise?
  • Whether the burden of proving the absence of consideration and the exercise of undue influence lies upon the party assailing the transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Javid Sherazi Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmad Ghauns vs Chairman, Town/Municipal Committee1994 CLC 430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29
  land acquisitionpublic purposeconstitutional petitionurgency powersmala fidesjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged notifications issued under sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the compulsory acquisition of the petitioner's land for a municipal public purpose. The core legal questions involved whether individual notice is mandatory before publishing a section 4 notification, whether the selection of land and determination of urgency under section 17(4) are open to judicial review, and whether the petitioner established mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that individual notice is not required under section 4, that the suitability of land and existence of urgency are primarily for the authorities to determine and generally immune from judicial review unless mala fides are proven, and that vague allegations of bad faith are insufficient. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the acquisition proceedings for the remaining required land, while partially relieving the petitioner based on a statement by the Municipal Committee's chairman. The key principle laid down is that the adequacy of urgency and selection of land for public acquisition lie within the executive domain, and mala fides must be strictly proven by concrete evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a legal requirement to issue an individual notice to a landowner before publishing a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Whether the question of urgency in acquiring land under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is subject to judicial review by the High Court?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of mala fides to invalidate land acquisition proceedings initiated by a public authority?
  • Does the availability of alternate land belonging to private owners or the government render the selection of a specific land parcel for acquisition illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Hotel (Pvt.) Limited vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Javed Hotel (Pvt.) Limited vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad Through Chairman And Another1994 PLD Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-27Read full judgment →
• Javaid alias Jeda and others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 430 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Javaid Alias Jeda And Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 430 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Jane Margrete William vs Abdul Hamid Mian1994 CLC 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-23
  benami transactionresulting trustdoctrine of advancementsource of considerationdeclaration of titleconsequential relief of possessionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, declaring the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of certain residential and commercial properties in Lahore, and restraining the defendant from denying his ownership. The core legal question was whether the suit properties, purchased and constructed in the name of the defendant (a foreign national and former wife of the plaintiff), were benami transactions held for the benefit of the plaintiff, or whether they belonged to the defendant through funds provided by her mother. The Lahore High Court held that the initial burden of proving the source of consideration for a benami transaction rests upon the plaintiff, and upon evaluating the evidence, concluded that the purchase money was entirely provided by the plaintiff from his own earnings and resources. The Court laid down that the English doctrine of advancement does not apply in Pakistan, and in the absence of a contrary intention or proof of a gift, a resulting trust arises in favour of the husband who provided the consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted both a declaration of title and consequential relief of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the English doctrine of advancement applies to property transactions between husband and wife in Pakistan?
  • What is the crucial test to determine whether a transaction is benami?
  • Does the provision of purchase money by a husband to acquire property in his wife's name create a resulting trust in the absence of a contrary intention?
  • Can an appellate court allow the amendment of a plaint to include the relief of possession as a consequential relief to a declaration of title?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Alias Jaimal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 435 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din And Other vs Hassan Din And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 185 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din And Another vs Allah Bakhsh And Another(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 118) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Jam Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Haji Umeda and others1994 MLD 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Hussain vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi, And Other1994 CLC 1610 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-12
  writ petitionmaintainabilityalternative remedytransfer feelocal governmentdismissal in liminejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a contractor challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, which set aside a municipal corporation's formula for levying a "transfer fee" on property transactions, ruling instead that the fee must be based on the price stated in the deed. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order was passed without jurisdiction and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner possessed adequate alternative remedies, specifically the right to file a representation before the Government of the Punjab under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, or to initiate a civil suit. The Court held that because the petitioner had access to efficacious alternative remedies under the statutory framework, the writ petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the principle that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when adequate alternative legal remedies remain unexhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed in limine if the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies?
  • Does the availability of a civil suit constitute an adequate alternative remedy barring the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahana vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
• Jaffaria Trust vs Sub Registrar EtcK.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →