Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Nishan vs Muhammad Mansha and others1993 CLC 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali and 16 others vs Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others1993 CLC 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali and 16 others vs Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and 13 others1993 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning agricultural land over which the plaintiff alleged that mutations of cancellation of lease and subsequent sale were fake, fraudulent, and collusive. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale transaction was proved and that a suit for declaration simpliciter was barred. The Lahore High Court examined the record under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and held that the lower courts misallocated the burden of proof, as the beneficiary of the mutation must prove the underlying transaction. The Court observed that revenue mutation entries carry no presumption of truth regarding title, are summary in nature, and require strict proof of admissions. Reviewing the evidence, the Court found the mutation proceedings tainted, irregular, and not conducted in open assembly as mandated. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, held that the vendee failed to discharge the onus of proof, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession.
Questions settled- Whether entries in duly sanctioned revenue mutations carry a presumption of truth regarding title or are merely admissible as evidence?
- Upon whom does the initial onus of proof lie to establish a transaction of sale embodied in a revenue mutation?
- Can a second appellate court review and interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the lower courts have misread the evidence and applied a wrong legal approach?
- Whether an oral sale of immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees is valid without a registered instrument under the Transfer of Property Act?
- Niaz Ahmad vs Noor Samand alias Noori and others1993 P Cr. L J 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain vs Maqsood Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Begum vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and 2 others1993 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Rafiq1993 CLC 257 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal question was whether the agreement to sell was legally proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, specifically whether a scribe can be considered an attesting witness when one of the two marginal witnesses was not produced, and whether a photocopy of the agreement was admissible given the original was destroyed. The Court held that the scribe, having witnessed the execution and signing of the document by the parties and attesting witnesses, qualifies as an attesting witness, thereby satisfying the requirements of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Furthermore, the Court ruled that objections regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence (the photocopy) cannot be raised for the first time in revision if not challenged during the reconstruction of the file or in the appellate court. The principle laid down is that a scribe who witnesses the execution of a document can be treated as an attesting witness, even if they did not sign in that capacity.
Questions settled- Can a scribe of a document be treated as an attesting witness for the purposes of proving execution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Can an objection regarding the admissibility of a photocopy of a document be raised for the first time during revisional proceedings?
- Does the failure to produce all marginal witnesses invalidate a document if the scribe witnessed the execution?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and 2 others1993 CLC 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of revenue authorities directing the implementation of a 1969 cancellation order regarding land allotments. The original allottee's claim was declared bogus and cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Despite this cancellation, the land remained in the allottee's name in revenue records, and was subsequently sold to the petitioner by the allottee's successors. The petitioner argued that as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, he was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is inapplicable to purchasers of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Court affirmed that such purchasers are deemed to have knowledge that allotments are subject to the incidence of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that fraud vitiates all subsequent transactions, and a successor cannot confer a better title than they possess.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Does the failure of revenue authorities to timely implement a cancellation order validate subsequent transfers of the affected land?
- Can successors in interest confer a valid title to land if the original allotment was based on fraud and subsequently cancelled?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Collector Lahore District Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Chatta vs Director of Agricultural and another1993 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Nazima Begum and others vs Hasina Begum:1993 CLC 2409 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
- Nazim Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Nazeer Ahmad alias Nazeera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2085 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs Mst. Hassan Ara Begum and others1993 CLC 702 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-11Read full judgment →
- Nazar Akram vs The State1993 MLD 2274 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ma,Nsoor Ahmad Khan and 8 others vs Province of Punjab, through Collector_Deputy Commissioner, Khushab and 7 others1993 MLD 716 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din and others vs Ismail through Legal Heirs1993 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the plaintiff claiming a right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and a collateral of the vendors. Prior to the institution of the suit, consolidation of holdings took place under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, resulting in new land being allotted in lieu of the subject land, and the plaintiff ceased to be a co-owner in the new Khata. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor who loses his status as a co-sharer due to consolidation proceedings prior to the suit can successfully maintain a pre-emption claim. The Lahore High Court held that a plaintiff must retain his preferential right of pre-emption at three crucial stages: the date of the sale, the date of the suit, and the date of the decree. Because the consolidation of holdings occurred before the institution of the suit and the plaintiff lost his co-owner status in the new Khata, he failed to maintain the required preferential right. The appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor lose the right of pre-emption if he ceases to be a co-owner as a result of consolidation of holdings before the institution of the suit?
- At what three stages must a plaintiff retain their preferential right of pre-emption to succeed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the ratio decidendi of Qaim Din v. Said Ahmad apply when a pre-emptor loses their underlying qualification of co-ownership prior to the filing of the suit?
- Naveed Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2596 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Naveed Ahmad Alias Billu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 395 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
- National Wood Industries, Gujrat vs Mst. Fazal Begum and another1993 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 24 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Maan Crockery Store and 21993 MLD 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan And Another vs Mukhtar Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. Labour & Service Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- Naseeruddin vs Ali Qadir Abbas and another1993 P Cr. L J 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer-Ud-Din vs Ali Qadir Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Nasar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-23Read full judgment →
- Nasar Ullah Khan Hunjra vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division), Islamabad and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
- Nasar Mehmood vs The State1993 MLD 367 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Nargis Shahen vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (Generalr)K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 409 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Naik Muhammad Khan vs Barkat UllahK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Naik Muhammad Khan vs Barkat Ullah1993 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Naik Alam and 3 others vs Muhammad Yaseen and 13 others1993 CLC 2174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from the dismissal of an appeal by the District Court, which held that the appeal was improperly constituted due to the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed by some co-plaintiffs against a joint decree of dismissal is maintainable without joining all co-plaintiffs, and whether the appellate court erred in refusing to implead the omitted party. The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable, as Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allows one plaintiff to successfully challenge a joint decree. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Order 41, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party even after the expiration of the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff is not fatal to an appeal against a joint decree, and courts must exercise their power to implead parties to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly when the omission was unintentional.
Questions settled- Can one plaintiff challenge a joint decree of dismissal without joining all other co-plaintiffs in the appeal?
- Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal?
- Is the non-joinder of a co-plaintiff fatal to an appeal against a joint decree of dismissal?
- Naeem Akhtar and 2 others vs The State through S.H.O., Police Station City, Sargodha1993 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Nadir through Legal Heirs vs Malik through Legal Heirs1993 PLD Lahore 700 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- M/s..Shoaib Bilal Corporation, U.B.L. Super Market, Circular Road,1993 PTD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the issuance of a notice under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the subsequent assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner association of persons, which had filed its income tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The core legal questions involve whether an assessee acquires a vested right to escape assessment if the Income Tax Officer fails to pass an order within the mandatory limitation period under section 59(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whether a stay order passed by the High Court operates from the moment of its issuance regardless of communication, and whether immunity from audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme can be arbitrarily denied. The Lahore High Court held that the failure of the Income Tax Officer to pass an order before the statutory deadline conferred a vested right upon the petitioner, rendering subsequent assessment null and void. Furthermore, an assessment order passed after the issuance of a stay order by the court is a nullity in law, irrespective of when it was communicated to the authority. The key principle laid down is that statutory limitation periods for assessment are mandatory, creating vested rights, and that departmental authorities cannot benefit from their own defaults to deny statutory immunities arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Does an assessee acquire a vested right to escape assessment if the Income Tax Officer fails to pass an order within the period specified under section 59(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a stay order passed by the High Court operate from the exact moment it is passed, irrespective of the time of its communication to the respondent authority?
- Can an Income Tax Officer arbitrarily deny the benefit of immunity from audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme due to a minor short payment of tax where the scheme does not provide for such loss of immunity?
- Is an assessment order finalized after the issuance of a stay order by the High Court considered a nullity in the eyes of law?
- M/s. Zasha Limited (Public) Limited Company, Lahore vs Agricultural1993 PLD Lahore 914 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a public limited company seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) to disburse the remaining foreign currency loan and release local currency importation funds for setting up a solvent oil extraction plant. ADBP raised a preliminary objection that contractual obligations cannot be enforced in constitutional jurisdiction, and further argued that the petitioner failed to meet revised policy requirements mandating cash deposits of equity. The Lahore High Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that ADBP is a statutory corporate body carrying out public/state functions under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 and bound by statutory rules. The sanction of loan constituted a promise by a public authority acting under statutory powers, rendering the doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable. The Court further held that retrospective policy changes cannot unilaterally alter financial terms to a beneficiary's detriment. The writ petition was accepted with costs, and mandamus was issued directing loan disbursement.
Questions settled- Can a statutory financial institution perform administrative acts that attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether contractual obligations arising from a loan sanction by a statutory corporate body can be enforced via a writ of mandamus under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a statutory bank retroactively apply new policy conditions regarding cash deposits to existing sanctioned loans to the detriment of the borrower?
- Whether Section 24(c) of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 applies to statements in personal guarantees that do not create a charge over property or influence loan approval?
- M/s. Shahtaj Sugar Mills vs Government of the Punjab and others1993 MLD 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Settlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mst. Khalida Begum1993 MLD 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-27Read full judgment →
- M/s. Muhammad Hanif Awan & Company and 3 others vs The Secretary1993 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. vs The Collector of Central1993 MLD 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions involving a common question of law regarding the interpretation of section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which requires an appellant to deposit the tax demanded or penalty levied before filing an appeal. The core legal question was whether the requirement of pre-deposit under section 45(3) is mandatory or directory, and whether an appeal can be summarily dismissed for non-compliance without examining the merits. The Lahore High Court held that section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is directory rather than mandatory. The court reasoned that the provision does not specify penal consequences for non-compliance, is framed in affirmative language, and must be interpreted to protect the beneficial and substantive right of appeal, keeping in view Islamic principles of jurisprudence. The ratio laid down is that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-deposit of the demanded tax or penalty without first examining the facts of the case, applying its mind, and determining whether a pre-deposit is warranted in the circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the provision of section 45(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 requiring the pre-deposit of tax or penalty is mandatory or directory?
- Can an appellate authority summarily dismiss an appeal under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 solely on the ground of non-deposit of the demanded tax without examining the merits of the case?
- How should statutory provisions limiting the right of appeal be construed under fiscal statutes in light of Islamic principles of interpretation?
- M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited, Lahore vs The Collector OfPTCL 1993 CL. 656 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. vs M/s. Cooperative Insurance Societies1993 MLD 2464 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on the failure to serve statutory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. The appellant sued the respondent cooperative society in its capacity as a guarantor. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint on a preliminary objection regarding the necessity of statutory notice without recording evidence, particularly when the issue of whether the suit related to the 'business of the society' was already a framed issue requiring factual determination. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed an illegality by deciding a mixed question of law and fact—whether the guarantee transaction constituted the 'business of the society'—without allowing the parties to lead evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the suit for trial on the framed issues, emphasizing that such controversies cannot be resolved summarily without evidence.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of non-service of statutory notice without recording evidence on the issue?
- Does a suit against a cooperative society in its capacity as a guarantor necessarily relate to the 'business of the society' under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to decide a framed issue requiring factual determination through a miscellaneous application without trial?
- M/s. Hilal Tanneries Limited vs The Registrar of Companies Government1993 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Agricultural Development1993 MLD 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against orders returning plaints for want of territorial jurisdiction in suits filed by a borrower against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan regarding loan recovery proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Court at Islamabad possessed territorial jurisdiction, whether Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act barred the suits, and whether the subsequent application of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to the Bank ousted the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that while the Civil Court initially possessed territorial jurisdiction and the suits were not barred by Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act—as the amount was not yet judicially determined as 'due'—the subsequent notification applying the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to the Bank rendered the Civil Court incompetent. The Court established that jurisdiction is determined by the plaint's contents at the initial stage, and that coercive recovery under the Land Revenue Act requires a prior judicial determination of the 'due' amount. Ultimately, disputes arising from loan agreements with banking companies fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court Banking.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the defendant's business office is located within its territorial limits?
- Can a banking institution initiate coercive recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act before the disputed loan amount is judicially determined as due?
- Does the application of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to a banking entity oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters arising from loan agreements?
- At the initial stage of proceedings, what material should a court consider to determine its territorial jurisdiction?
- M/s. Dehkan Agro through Partner vs Agricultural Development Bank1993 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Chohan Flying Coach Service, Sahiwal vs Regional Transport1993 CLC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitution petition challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to grant a 'D-Class' stand license to a competitor, arguing the decision was made under the dictative influence of the Chief Minister of Punjab and without mandatory consultation with the local authority. The core legal questions concerned whether the Regional Transport Authority exercised its statutory discretion independently, whether the failure to consult the local authority rendered the license void, and whether the petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy and the plea of laches. The Court held that the Regional Transport Authority acted without lawful authority by mechanically following executive directives, violating the independent exercise of statutory discretion required by the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not an absolute bar when an order is void or passed without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must exercise their discretion independently, free from external influence, and must strictly adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, such as consultation, to ensure the validity of their administrative actions.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority validly exercise its discretion under the dictation of a superior executive authority?
- Does the failure to consult a local authority, as required by statute, render a licensing decision void?
- Is the principle of exhaustion of remedies an absolute bar to invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does a competitor have locus standi to challenge the grant of a transport stand license to another party?
- M/s. Chaudhry Brothers vs Province of the Punjab through1993 MLD 2437 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, suppliers of printing paper to the provincial government, challenged the refusal of the respondents to reimburse sales tax paid by the petitioners on goods supplied under contracts executed in May 1990. Following the execution of these contracts, the Finance Act, 1990 imposed a sales tax where none existed previously. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to recover this subsequently levied tax from the purchaser under Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, or whether contractual terms shifted this liability to the suppliers. The Court held that the contractual clause requiring suppliers to indicate taxes separately did not constitute a stipulation shifting the tax burden, but rather facilitated the application of Section 64-A. The Court ruled that Section 64-A entitles a seller to recover taxes imposed after the contract's execution from the purchaser in the absence of a specific contrary stipulation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a constitutional petition is maintainable when the claim is founded upon statutory provisions rather than purely contractual obligations. The petitions were allowed and remanded for determination of the refundable amounts.
Questions settled- Does a contractual requirement to separately indicate taxes in a tender shift the liability for subsequently imposed taxes to the seller?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a claim arising from a contract when the right sought to be enforced is conferred by statute?
- Under Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, is a seller entitled to recover taxes imposed after the execution of a contract from the purchaser?
- M/s. Bombay Cloth House, Lahore vs Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Zone1993 PTD 728 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 924 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan & Other vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., and 2 others vs Muhammad Umar Malik1993 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a judgment where the respondent, an employee of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, challenged his termination through a declaratory suit, which was decreed by the lower courts on the ground that the termination order was not passed by a competent authority. The Lahore High Court examined whether the employment was governed by statutory rules or the principle of master and servant. The Court held that the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 were framed under the memorandum and articles of association rather than statutory powers, meaning the relationship between the bank and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, an employee whose terms of service are not regulated by statute cannot challenge termination through a declaratory suit or seek reinstatement, and the exclusive remedy for wrongful termination lies in a suit for damages. Furthermore, the Court found that the termination decision was validly made by the Executive Board. The petition was allowed and the lower courts' decrees were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the employment relationship of a banking company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance is governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Can an employee of a non-statutory company challenge their termination of service by filing a suit for declaration and seeking reinstatement?
- What is the appropriate remedy for an employee whose services have been wrongfully terminated in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Does section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 bar the specific enforcement of a contract of personal service?
- Mushtaq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Tahira Yasmin and others1993 CLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Qadri vs Noor Hussain1993 MLD 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2250 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Murtaza Khan vs The State1993 MLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mureed Hussain vs P.S., Civil Lines, D.G. Khan1993 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Murad Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Munshi Khan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
- Munsaf Khan alias Kala vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- Munir and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 578 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad and anothers vs The State and 2 others1993 MLD 537 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Munawar Zaman and others vs Elahi Bakhsh1993 PLD Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar alias Mokha vs Waryam and others1993 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1993 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs The State1993 MLD 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad Alias Azhar Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad alias Azhar Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mujeebullah Khan Mohibullah Khan Deceased And Other vs BakhshK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mujeebullah Khan (Mohibullah Khan) (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Bakhsh Ilahi1993 MLD 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mujahid Ali vs Salamat Ali and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammadan College of Education, Toba Tek Singh through Principal1993 CLC 2528 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair and another vs Saleh Muhammad and 2 others1993 CLC 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land sold via a registered sale-deed on June 17, 1979. The plaintiffs filed the suit on June 17, 1980. The petitioners (vendees) challenged the suit as time-barred, arguing that the limitation period expired on June 16, 1980, and that the initial failure to appoint a guardian for minor defendants until after the limitation period rendered the suit defective. The core legal questions were whether the suit was filed within the statutory limitation period and whether the subsequent appointment of a guardian for minor defendants affected the limitation status of the suit. The Court held that, in computing limitation, the first day is excluded, meaning the one-year period expired on June 17, 1980, rendering the filing timely. Furthermore, the Court held that the duty to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant lies with the Court under Order 32, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908; thus, a delay in this appointment does not prejudice the plaintiff, and the proceedings are validated retroactively to the date of filing.
Questions settled- How is the period of limitation calculated when a suit is filed following a registered sale-deed?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant at the time of filing a suit render the suit time-barred if the appointment occurs after the limitation period expires?
- Is the plaintiff responsible for the Court's delay in appointing a guardian for a minor defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Zaman and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 963 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 6 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Abdul Majid1993 PLD Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of applications filed by a judgment-debtor seeking to set aside ex parte decrees passed in summary suits for the recovery of loans based on promissory notes. The core legal question was whether the appellant had demonstrated 'special circumstances' under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to justify setting aside the decrees, and whether the summary procedure itself was legally valid. The Court held that the summary procedure under Order 37 is a lawful mechanism designed to prevent debtors from employing delaying tactics and is not discriminatory or un-Islamic. The Court further held that the 'special circumstances' required to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4 must be uncommon, rare, and exceptional, placing a heavy burden of proof on the defendant. As the appellant failed to seek leave to defend within the prescribed time and failed to establish such exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the lower court acted lawfully in decreeing the suits.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'special circumstances' for setting aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the summary procedure for recovery of loans under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 discriminatory or un-Islamic?
- Can a court decree a suit summarily if the defendant fails to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed period?
- Does a minor clerical error in the amount claimed in a summons invalidate a decree passed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Yousaf through his L.Rs. and others vs Noor Din and others1993 MLD 763 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land originally held by Wassan, who died in 1918. The core legal questions were whether Sultan, a brother of Wassan, survived him, thereby entitling his successors to a share in the estate, and whether the suit for declaration and possession was barred by the law of limitation. The Court held that the death entry (Exh.P.7) sufficiently established that Sultan survived Wassan, affirming the lower courts' findings. Regarding limitation, the Court held that the suit for possession was filed within the statutory period. It further clarified that for the purposes of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, a distinction exists between mutation orders passed by authorities competent to decide title (where the cause of action accrues upon the order) and those sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act for fiscal purposes (where the cause of action accrues when the aggrieved party feels aggrieved by the entry). The Court affirmed that revenue mutations do not decide title and thus do not trigger limitation in the same manner as orders creating rights.
Questions settled- Does a mutation sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967 constitute a document of title or presumptive evidence of title?
- When does the cause of action accrue for a suit challenging a mutation entry sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Is a suit for possession of inherited land governed by the same limitation principles as a suit for declaration regarding a mutation order?
- Does a mutation order passed by an authority competent to determine rights trigger the limitation period from the date of the order?
- Muhammad Yousaf Etc vs Hassan RazaK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Nazar Muhammad1993 P Cr. L J 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Hassan Raza1993 PLD Lahore 88 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Allah Yar and others1993 CLC 2337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and anothers vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and another vs Nadimuddin Malik1993 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order against tenants who challenged the landlord's title and the validity of a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether the transfer of ownership via an oral gift was valid and whether the failure to serve a separate notice under Section 13-A to each of the joint tenants rendered the notice defective. The Court held that the landlord had sufficiently proven the transfer of ownership and that the notice served on one joint tenant was sufficient, as the other tenant had actual knowledge of the change in ownership. Furthermore, the Court held that the institution of an ejectment petition itself serves as notice and that tenants lack the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed between a landlord and their predecessor. Consequently, the Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the tenants' failure to pay rent to the new owner constituted wilful default, as depositing rent in the name of the previous landlord was invalid.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 defective if served on only one of several joint tenants?
- Does the institution of an ejectment petition by a new owner constitute sufficient notice of the change of ownership under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a tenant have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed through which the landlord acquired the property?
- Is the deposit of rent in the name of a previous landlord considered a valid tender of rent after the property has been transferred to a new owner?
- Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others vs Mst. Zubeda Begum and another1993 MLD 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from pre-emption suits that were consolidated and decreed by the trial court. The petitioners filed two separate appeals in the District Court; one was accepted and remanded, while the other was dismissed due to the failure to append copies of the judgment and decree. The petitioners then challenged the dismissal through a revision petition, which is the second such petition filed, the earlier one having been dismissed as withdrawn. The core legal question was whether a second revision petition is maintainable after an earlier one has been withdrawn by the party. The Lahore High Court held that a party has only one right of revision, and once exercised and decided—whether on merits, by consent, default, or withdrawal—no second revision petition can be filed. The Court based its decision on section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, general legal principles regarding estoppel and res judicata, and the applicability of Order XXIII read with section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a second revision petition is maintainable after an earlier revision petition has been dismissed as withdrawn?
- Does a party have more than one right of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are the provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to revision proceedings under section 115?
- Whether the withdrawal of a revision petition operates as an estoppel against filing a subsequent revision petition?
- Muhammad Younis and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →