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.

• Sher Muhammad And Another vs Ghulam MuhammadK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 4 others vs Saeed Akhtar Tatla and 2 others1993 MLD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sheikhupura Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 580 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Tariq vs Muhammad Sharif, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Model1993 P Cr. L J 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Salim Ali vs Syeda Sitara Zaidi1993 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muzaffar Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Aslam vs Samira Aamer and 2 others1993 CLC 208 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Rahim vs Noor Muhammad and 8 others1993 CLC 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02
  amendment of pleadingscivil revisionremand orderrendition of accountslimitation periodprocedural technicalitiesappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for rendition of accounts regarding rental income from a jointly owned property. The trial court initially granted a preliminary decree, but the first appellate court set aside this decision, ruling the suit not maintainable in its present form. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the matter under Order 41, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek recovery of a specific amount. The defendant challenged this remand order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to order an amendment without a formal application and that the claim had become time-barred. The High Court upheld the remand order, holding that under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts possess the authority to direct necessary amendments to pleadings at any stage, including the appellate stage, to determine the real controversy, regardless of whether a formal application is filed. The Court further affirmed that such amendments are permissible even if the limitation period has expired, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court direct the amendment of a plaint to correct a formal defect without a formal application from the parties?
  • Does the expiration of the limitation period for a claim automatically bar the court from allowing an amendment to the pleadings?
  • Does an amendment of a plaint to change the relief from rendition of accounts to recovery of a specific amount fundamentally alter the nature of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheeda Khan and others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur1993 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
• Sharu and 2 others vs Mst. Fatima and others1993 CLC 625 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06
  inheritanceShariat lawcustomary lawadverse possessionco-sharerslimitationcivil revisionvesting of estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment regarding the inheritance of landed property left by a deceased Muslim owner who died in 1936. The core legal questions involve whether the family was governed by custom or Shariat law in matters of inheritance, and whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by time and adverse possession. The Lahore High Court held that the documentary evidence established that the family followed Shariat law rather than custom, rendering the 1937 mutation excluding female heirs illegal. The Court further held that upon the death of a Muslim owner, the estate immediately vests in the legal heirs automatically, making them co-sharers in joint possession, thereby negating any pleas of limitation or adverse possession by other co-heirs. The key principles laid down are that Islamic law of inheritance applies retrospectively to Muslim estates under the relevant statutory provisions, that a wrong mutation confers no title, and that possession by one co-sharer is deemed possession for all co-sharers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether female heirs are entitled to inherit under Shariat law despite a historical mutation sanctioning inheritance under custom?
  • Can a plea of adverse possession be successfully raised by a co-heir against other co-heirs in joint property?
  • Does the estate of a deceased Muslim vest automatically in the legal heirs immediately upon death without any interregnum?
  • Are the provisions relating to Shariat law of inheritance under Ordinance 13 of 1983 retrospective in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif-Ul-I-Iaq vs The State1993 MLD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sharif and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 629 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 200 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shamas-Ud-Din and 4 others vs Mst. Sitran Begum alias Sitara Begum1993 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Shamas Ud Din, Alias Shamsoo vs Province of Punjab And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shakila Begum vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Akhtar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Shaireen Abdullah vs Mehmood Akhtar1993 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20
  section 491 CrPCcustody of minorsright of Hizanatwelfare of minortender ageMohammadan LawGuardians and Wards Act 1890
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery and custody of her two minor children, aged 3-1/2 and 2-1/2 years, from her former husband. The respondent father contended that the petitioner had surrendered her right of Hizanat pursuant to an agreement executed at the time of divorce and argued that custody disputes should be determined by the Guardian Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The High Court considered whether it could issue directions regarding minor custody under Section 491 Cr.P.C. when the minors are detained or kept away from their lawful guardian. The High Court held that under Mohammadan Law, the mother possesses the natural right of Hizanat over children of tender age, which cannot be defeated except by her misconduct. Ordering that custody of both minors be handed over to the mother immediately in the interest of their welfare, the Court clarified that the parties remain free to seek final adjudication regarding guardianship before the Guardian Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody of minor children of tender age to the mother?
  • Does a mother retain her right of Hizanat over infant children under Mohammadan Law after the dissolution of marriage?
  • Can an agreement surrendering the right of Hizanat deprive a mother of the custody of minors of tender age where their welfare requires her care?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others1993 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreeservice of summonssubstituted servicelimitation perioddate of knowledgerevisional jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a civil suit filed by respondents seeking a declaration of title and cancellation of a registered sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner after initial service reports indicated an incomplete address and subsequent substituted service via newspaper proclamation was effected. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree within thirty days of acquiring knowledge, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The trial court accepted the application and set aside the decree, finding the initial service defective and fraudulent. However, the revisional court reversed this order. The Lahore High Court held that the revisional court erred in setting aside the trial court's discretionary order, noting that there is no legal bar to relying on original court records and process-server reports regarding service. The High Court established that where a defendant is not duly served and an ex parte decree is obtained through an incomplete address, the period of limitation runs from the date of knowledge, and the trial court's discretionary relief setting aside the ex parte decree ought not to be interfered with lightly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on the order-sheet and process-server reports on the original file when deciding the question of a defendant's service without formally exhibiting them in evidence?
  • Whether the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree commences from the date of knowledge of the decree when the defendant was not duly served?
  • Is an order for substituted service via newspaper proclamation valid when procured on the basis of process-server reports showing an incomplete and vague address?
  • Should a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order passed by a trial court setting aside an ex parte decree in the absence of legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
• Shahamand Ali And Other vs SHO P.S. Gogera Distt. Okara And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shahamand Ali and 6 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Gogera, District1933 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shahab Din and another vs The State1993 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Saeed Tetla, S.H.O.1993 P Cr. L J 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Administrator1993 CLC 902 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Din And Other vs (M/s.) Hajveri Cooperative Society Ltd. AndK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Shafique Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and others vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan and others1993 MLD 26 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain alias Shabba vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad and others vs Khushi Muhammad and others1993 CLC 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29
  agreement of salespecific performanceColonization of Government Lands Actpermanent injunctionmisreading of evidenceappellate court powerscourt-fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for permanent injunction regarding land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement of sale was void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958, while the appellate court held the agreement was not void but that its execution was not established and a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court's findings regarding the non-execution of documents were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and that an agreement of sale executed by an allottee cannot be avoided under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958. Furthermore, the High Court held that instead of dismissing the suit on technical grounds, it was a fit case to exercise powers under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale upon payment of the remaining consideration and making good the deficiency in court-fee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement of sale executed by an allottee is void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958?
  • Can an appellate court grant a decree for specific performance under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the original suit was framed as one for permanent injunction?
  • When does limitation start to run for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning government land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
  • Does the non-appearance of a plaintiff who is of advanced age and physically incapacitated justify drawing an adverse inference against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad alias Pappu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Shaafi Woollen Industries Limited, Lahore and 5 others In the matter of vs Not1993 PLD Lahore 691 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The Election Tribunal Comprising MR. Justice Mian1993 PLD Lahore 791 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07
  Election PetitionElection TribunalSummoning of WitnessesRepresentation of the People Act 1976Interim OrderConstitutional JurisdictionProcedural LawOfficial Witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an elected candidate challenging an interim order of the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the election petitioner's application under Section 64/65 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 to summon certain witnesses with records through the Court, despite their names not being in the original election petition and affidavits not being annexed. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to summon private persons or witnesses not listed in the petition under the special procedure prescribed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 64 of the Act, the Tribunal possesses the powers of a Civil Court, and under paragraph 6 of the relevant Election Commission Notification, it holds the authority to examine witnesses if required. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than entrap litigants, and Constitutional writ jurisdiction is not maintainable against interim orders of the Tribunal since an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal under Section 67.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to summon witnesses whose names and affidavits were not appended to the original election petition?
  • Can an Election Tribunal exercise the powers of a Civil Court under Section 64 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 to summon witnesses through the process of the court?
  • Is a Constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against an interim order passed by an Election Tribunal when appellate remedies are available under Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muzaffar Ali Jawa, Chairman Town Committee Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad vs Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and 2 others1993 CLC 304 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muzaffar Ali Jawa vs D.C. and others1993 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Ilyas vs Malik Muhammad Shaft and others1993 MLD 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Arif and 3 others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another1993 CLC 872 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fayaz Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. Allah Rakha (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs U.P. Church and others1993 MLD 2126 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-10
  regular second appealcompulsory registrationlimitation as jurisdictional defectcollusive decreefraudulent transferdeclaratory suitdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing the plaintiff church's suit for a declaration that a Registrar's order directing compulsory registration of a sale-deed in favour of the defendant was void, and that the plaintiff was the owner of the property based on a prior consent decree. The core legal question concerned whether the Registrar's order for compulsory registration was without jurisdiction due to being based on a time-barred appeal, and whether the plaintiff's declaratory suit could override the prior sale. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation is mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning a time-barred appeal cannot legally be entertained, rendering the Registrar's order for compulsory registration without jurisdiction. However, the Court also found that the plaintiff's consent decree was collusive and an attempt to commit fraud to defeat the defendant's validly executed sale-deed. The key principle laid down is that the requirement of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act goes to jurisdiction, prohibiting waiver, and a discretionary declaratory relief cannot be granted to a plaintiff who attempts to benefit from fraud and collusion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defect of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 is jurisdictional or merely procedural?
  • Does an appellate authority have the jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a discretionary declaratory decree be granted to a plaintiff whose suit is based on collusion and fraud?
  • What is the effective date of a registered sale-deed under Section 47 of the Registration Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Allah Ditta vs Mst. Zainab Begum and 4 others1993 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Majid vs Settlement Department1993 CLC 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
• Seth Nisar Ahmad vs Tassawar Hussain and another1993 MLD 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Etc. vs Muhammad Saeed-Ud-Din KhanK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 969 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and 5 others vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sarbuland vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah and another vs Muhammad Manzoor and another1993 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Sameer Ehsan Ullah Makhzan And Other vs Muhammad Asif Zaman Etc.K.L.R. 1993 CivH Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sameer Ehsan Ullah Makhzan and 3 others vs Muhammad Asif Zaman1993 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25
  transfer of civil suitsapprehension of biasjudicial independenceexpeditious trialfrivolous applicationcode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking the transfer of six pending civil suits from the court of a civil judge in Lahore. The petitioners contended that they apprehended not receiving a fair trial because the trial judge dismissed their stay applications, proceeded with the cases hastily by fixing short dates in compliance with a High Court directive, failed to consolidate all suits, and because the respondents allegedly boasted of having influential family members in government service. The Lahore High Court held that adverse judicial orders, expeditious trial proceedings in accordance with higher court directions, and baseless apprehensions or conjectures regarding a judge's vulnerability to influence do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a case. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from frivolous allegations and unnecessary harassment, and that a judge's expression of no objection to a transfer cannot justify moving a case absent a legitimate legal basis. Consequently, the transfer application was dismissed as frivolous with special costs imposed on the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the passing of successive adverse judicial orders by a trial court constitutes a sufficient ground for the transfer of a suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a case be transferred from a trial court merely because the presiding officer has stated that they have no objection to the transfer?
  • Does the expeditious disposal of cases by a trial court in compliance with a High Court directive provide a valid ground for transferring the matter to another court?
  • Are vague and conjectural allegations that a litigant has influential relatives who might approach the presiding judge sufficient to warrant the transfer of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Samand Khan vs Settlement Commissioner and others1993 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs Abdur Rashid and others1993 P Cr. L J 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Saleem & Co. vs Income-Tax Authorities ,1993 PTD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain and another vs Syed Khadim Hussain and 3 others1993 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2415 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station, Kunjah and another1993 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26
  registration of FIRcounter-versionconstitutional petitioninvestigationcognizable offenceprivate complaintalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) as a counter-version to an existing case. The petitioner alleged that his injuries were suppressed in the initial F.I.R. and that the police failed to register his version of events. The respondent S.H.O. submitted that the petitioner’s version had already been investigated, found to be false and unsubstantiated by local witnesses, and that a challan had already been submitted to the court. The core legal question was whether the police are mandatorily required to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version when the initial investigation has already addressed and rejected that version. The Court held that where the police have already investigated the counter-version and concluded it to be false, directing the registration of a second F.I.R. would be an exercise in futility. The Court affirmed that the petitioner possesses an alternative, more efficacious remedy by filing a private complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police mandatorily required to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version if the initial investigation has already found that version to be false?
  • Can a High Court issue a direction to register an F.I.R. when the police have already investigated the matter and submitted a challan to the court?
  • Is a private complaint a more efficacious remedy than a writ petition for the registration of an F.I.R. when the police have already rejected the petitioner's version?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad YounusK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 212 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad Younus and another1993 CLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993'P Cr. L J 1686 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sajida Mussarrat vs Muhammad Shafi and 2 others1993 CLC 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19
  civil revisioninheritance mutationadjournmentdouble defaultdismissal of suitproduction of evidenceCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from the dismissal of a suit filed by the daughter of a deceased landowner, who challenged an inheritance mutation on the grounds that the deceased followed the Shiite faith, thereby excluding his brothers from inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments and ultimately failed to appear on the final date of hearing. The appellate court upheld this decision, applying Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order XVII, Rule 3 to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit when the plaintiff defaulted on both producing evidence and appearing in court. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that Order XVII, Rule 3 applies even in cases of 'double default'—where a party fails to perform the act for which time was granted and also fails to appear at the adjourned hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a party fails to produce evidence and also fails to appear at the adjourned hearing?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after granting multiple adjournments to a plaintiff for the production of evidence?
  • Is the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restricted to cases where the defaulting party is present in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Asghar Cheema vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 977 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sain Muhammad Tufail vs Anjuman-E-Darbar-E-Hussain1993 MLD 316 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Saima Rashid vs Imran Riaz Imami and another1993 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22
  Muslim Family Laws Ordinancedivorce proceedingsjurisdictionforeign nationalPakistani citizenshiptalaqwrit petitionChairman Union Councildual nationalityprivate international law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Chairman, Union Council, to initiate divorce proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, where the husbands are U.S. citizens. The core legal question was whether a non-Pakistani Muslim citizen could invoke Section 7 of the Ordinance. The petitioners contended that Section 1(2) of the Ordinance restricts its application to Muslim citizens of Pakistan. The High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, including Section 7, applies exclusively to Muslim citizens of Pakistan. The court clarified that the registration of a marriage under Section 5 of the Ordinance in Pakistan does not extend the applicability of Section 7 to non-Pakistani citizens. Consequently, the proceedings before the Chairman, Arbitration Council, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the respondent husbands were not Muslim citizens of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-Pakistani Muslim citizen invoke Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Does the registration of a marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in Pakistan confer jurisdiction under Section 7 if one spouse is a foreign national?
  • Is the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, applicable to all Muslims residing in Pakistan, irrespective of their nationality?
  • What is the effect of acquiring U.S. nationality on Pakistani citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1951?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Saidan Gul Shah vs Sardar Mumtaz Ali Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 8 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad Shah vs Ghulam Hussain1993 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadpartial pre-emptioncivil revisionfeeble right
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment which had set aside the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit on the ground of partial pre-emption. The Lahore High Court examined the record and focused on the core legal question of whether the pre-emptor had performed the mandatory statutory demands (Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad) with due alacrity, promptness, and despatch under the applicable pre-emption laws. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the timely and proper performance of the requisite Talbs, and that unexplained delays in making the demands extinguish the right of pre-emption, which is inherently a feeble right requiring strict observance of formalities. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the pre-emption claim failed due to non-fulfillment of the mandatory prerequisites.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad with due promptness and despatch extinguishes the right of pre-emption?
  • Does the rule of partial pre-emption apply when the superior right claimed extends only to a portion of the sold land?
  • Are the formalities and pre-requisite demands for enforcing a right of pre-emption required to be strictly observed?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Mohammad Shah vs Ghulam HussainK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Mansoor Ahmad vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others1993 MLD 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16
  Waqf propertyAuqaf departmentLand Reforms RegulationChief Administrator of AuqafConstitutional petitionWaqf beneficiariesLand acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by descendants of the late Amir of Bahawalpur seeking directions against the Chief Administrator of Auqaf to disburse shares of the income from a waqf property created via a 'Farman' dated April 4, 1958, and challenging the resumption of land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and a land acquisition notification. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf constitutes a 'person' exempt from land ceilings under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, and whether a dedicator can subsequently alter the beneficiaries or purposes of a waqf once created without reserving such a power. The Lahore High Court held that the Chief Administrator of Auqaf is a body corporate and thus falls within the exception under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, rendering the resumption orders void. The Court further held that a dedicator divests all ownership upon creating a valid waqf and cannot subsequently alter beneficiaries or terms unless such power was reserved in the original dedication. The petition was accepted, and the impugned resumption and acquisition orders were declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf falls within the purview of the expression 'person' under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Can a dedicator alter the purposes or beneficiaries of a waqf after its original creation if no such power was reserved in the initial declaration?
  • Are the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 applicable to land held in trust by a body corporate constituted under a Provincial law?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 can examine the validity of orders passed by land reform authorities on the touchstone of the law itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Dad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1778 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• Safiullah Khan, vs P.I.A. Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Safir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 974 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Safia Noureen vs S.H.O. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Safia Begum, Deputy Education Officer, Shorkot, Distt, Jhang vs S.H.O., P.S. Garh Maharaj Distt Jhang And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Safia Begum vs S.H.O. Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang1993 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27
  further investigationsubmission of challanpolice powerswrit petitioncriminal investigationcognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police transferring the investigation of a criminal case to the Superintendent of Police, Range Crimes, Faisalabad, after the initial investigation had already resulted in a challan being submitted to the trial court. The petitioner, who had been declared innocent in the initial police report, argued that once a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is submitted, the police lack the legal authority to initiate a fresh or further investigation. The Lahore High Court examined the contention and rejected the petitioner's argument. The Court held that the police remain competent to conduct further investigations even after the submission of a challan to the court. The Court clarified that this authority persists even if the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and commenced recording evidence. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitioner's legal position, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming the police's power to conduct subsequent investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the police have the authority to conduct further investigations after the submission of a challan to the court?
  • Does the commencement of trial proceedings and the recording of evidence by a court preclude the police from conducting further investigations?
  • Can a police investigation be transferred to another officer or department after the initial challan has been filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeen Abdul Ghani vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed And Other vs Zulfiqar Ali And OtherKLR. 1993 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed and others vs The Province of the Punjab through the Home Secretary and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali vs Ijaz Hussan and others1993 CLC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1993 MLD 321 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-07
  ejectment petitionpersonal needsigning of pleadingsVakalatnamacurable irregularitysecond appealbona fide requirementlandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of personal need. The core legal questions were whether the initial failure of the respondent to sign the ejectment petition and Vakalatnama rendered the proceedings void ab initio, and whether a female landlord is legally barred from seeking eviction for business purposes. The Court held that the failure to sign the pleadings and Vakalatnama is a mere irregularity, not a fatal defect, and is curable at any stage by allowing the plaintiff to sign the documents. The Court affirmed that such an amendment relates back to the date of the original institution of the suit, validating previous proceedings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the contention that a female landlord cannot seek eviction for business purposes, noting that she may operate a business through agents or employees. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's bona fide personal need, finding no misreading of evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to sign an ejectment petition and Vakalatnama constitute a fatal defect or a curable irregularity?
  • Does an amendment to a plaint or petition allowing for signatures alter the date of the institution of the suit?
  • Is a female landlord legally barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for the purpose of conducting business?
  • Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding bona fide personal need be challenged in a second appeal without proving misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadi Asmatullah vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan And 4K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• S.T. Trading vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax1993 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• S. M. Amin Haider vs Niamat Ali And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Russie M. Dinshaw vs Govt. of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-18Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din vs Fateh Din and another1993 CLC 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Riffat Akram vs The Chairman, Admission Board/Principal, King1993 CLC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →