Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammad Yar vs Sardar Khan and 11 others1993 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17
  Muslim Lawlegitimacyacknowledgment of paternityinheritancepresumption of marriagesecond appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute in this regular second appeal concerned the inheritance rights of the appellant, who claimed to be the son of the deceased propositus, Ismail. The lower courts had dismissed his suit, finding him to be an illegitimate child born while his mother was married to another man. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant successfully established his paternity through evidence of treatment by the deceased, which raised a presumption of legitimacy under Muslim Law. The Court emphasized that where direct evidence of marriage is absent, acknowledgment of paternity serves as substantive proof of a valid marriage, unless disproved by clear evidence of an insurmountable impediment, such as an existing prior marriage. The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving the illegitimacy of the appellant. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that succession opens immediately upon the death of a Muslim owner, and inheritance rights cannot be defeated by unsubstantiated claims. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the appellant’s suit for inheritance was decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Under Muslim Law, can acknowledgment of paternity establish the legitimacy of a child and a valid marriage in the absence of direct proof?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the party denying legitimacy once an acknowledgment of paternity is established?
  • Can a claim for inheritance be defeated by the argument that the heir is in possession of only a portion of the estate?
  • Does succession to the estate of a deceased Muslim open immediately upon death without the intervention of state functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and others vs Mithu1993 MLD 683 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1338 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Shah vs The State1993 MLD 514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghani vs Ali Ahmad and 3 others1993 MLD 772 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs The State and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The Province of Punjab through Its Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Govt of Punjab And OtherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 193 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Industries1993 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18
  civil revisionterritorial jurisdictionrejection of plaintcause of actionlease disputeOrder VII Rule 11 CPCSection 20 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding a lease for the excavation of ordinary sand in Chiniot, sanctioned by an authority stationed in Lahore. The petitioner's suit was initially rejected by the civil judge under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for lacking a cause of action, while the lower appellate court held that Lahore civil courts lacked territorial jurisdiction and ordered the return of the plaint. The Lahore High Court examined the question of territorial jurisdiction and the scope of Order VII, Rule 11. The Court held that since the lease was sanctioned and terminated by authorities whose principal offices are located in Lahore, the cause of action arose within Lahore, granting its courts territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the non-disclosure of a cause of action, which warrants the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, and the non-availability of a cause of action, which requires framing issues and recording evidence. The civil revision was accepted, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil courts at the location of the principal office of a sanctioning authority possess territorial jurisdiction to try a suit arising from the termination of a lease?
  • What is the distinction between non-disclosure of a cause of action and non-availability of a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action without framing issues and recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz Anwar vs The State1993 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehsan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2602 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and another vs Muhammad Sharif and 5 others1993 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir alias Tania vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs Syed Ali Abbas1993 CLC 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 3 others vs Khuda Bakhsh and 3 others1993 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantco-sharerjoint propertyurban rent restrictiontitle disputedoctrine of estoppelsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the appellants regarding a shop situated in Dera Ghazi Khan. The appellants contested the petition by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting instead that appellant No. 1 is a co-sharer in the joint Khata who purchased a share prior to the initiation of proceedings and therefore possesses the shop as a co-owner. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition, but the first appellate Court ultimately allowed the appeal and ordered ejectment, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The core legal question is whether a tenant who purchases a share in a joint property and becomes a co-sharer can be subjected to ejectment proceedings under rent restriction laws. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the ejectment order, holding that the status of appellant No. 1 is that of a co-owner in possession rather than a tenant, rendering rent proceedings incompetent. The key principle laid down is that a purchaser of a share in a joint Khata becomes a co-owner and cannot be dispossessed through rent proceedings under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser of a share in a joint Khata becomes a co-owner and ceases to be a tenant for the purposes of rent restriction laws?
  • Can a co-sharer in possession of joint property be ejected through an ejectment petition filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does the principle of estoppel under the law prevent a tenant who has acquired a share in joint property from asserting a co-owner's title in ejectment proceedings?
  • What is the extent of jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when a bona fide question of title is raised in rent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad alias Jada vs The State1993 MLD 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25
  quashment of FIRnon-cognizable offenceProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordersearch warrantpolice investigationmala fiderecovery witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an F.I.R. and subsequent trial proceedings regarding the alleged possession of heroin in a private residence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to arrest an accused, conduct an investigation, and submit a challan for a non-cognizable offence under the Order without a search warrant or judicial order. The Court held that offences under Articles 4, 8, and 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, are non-cognizable unless committed in a public place. Consequently, the police lacked the authority to search the petitioner's private residence or conduct an investigation without a warrant issued by a competent authority, as required by Article 22 of the Order and Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that failure to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements renders the police action, including the recovery and subsequent investigation, a nullity, thereby justifying the quashment of the proceedings to prevent abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences under Articles 4, 8, and 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable when committed in a private residence?
  • Does a police officer have the authority to conduct an investigation into a non-cognizable offence without an order from a Magistrate?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to comply with the search warrant requirements under Article 22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Can a trial Court take cognizance of an offence based on a police report filed in violation of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 749 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Station House Officer and others1993 MLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20
  constitutional petitionillegal dispossessionpolice excessstatus quo orderpetrol filling stationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the high-handed action of police functionaries who illegally dispossessed him from his petrol filling station at the behest of private respondents, notwithstanding a pending civil suit and an operative status quo order passed by a civil court. The core legal questions centered on the competence of a constitutional petition against illegal police intervention in private property disputes and the blatant violation of a judicial status quo order. The Lahore High Court held that the police acted wholly without jurisdiction, exceeding their mandate by aiding in forcible dispossession under the guise of preventing a breach of peace. The court ruled that police intervention to oust a citizen from possession at odd hours without legal sanction is unlawful. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the police action was declared illegal, the respondents were directed to restore possession to the petitioner forthwith, and departmental action was ordered against the erring police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the illegal action of police functionaries in dispossessing a citizen from property?
  • Can police functionaries intervene to hand over possession of property to a private party without lawful sanction?
  • What is the effect of police executing a dispossession despite an operative status quo order issued by a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Baig vs The State1993 MLD 567 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs The State1993 MLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Pakistan Railways and others1993 MLD 150 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs District Judge, Lahore and 6 others1993 PLD Lahore 566 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdur Rehman1993 CLC 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14
  refereearbitratorstatement of refereeevidence act section 20qanun-e-shahadat article 33civil revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of consolidated judgments of the lower courts decreeing suits based on the statement of a referee appointed under Section 20 of the Evidence Act/Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The core legal question was whether the appointed advocate acted as a referee or as an arbitrator when he inspected the spot, examined witnesses, perused records, and divided the disputed property. The Lahore High Court held that a referee is only authorized to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief and cannot conduct a roving inquiry, examine witnesses, or render an adjudicatory decision akin to an arbitrator. Since the referee exceeded his mandate by conducting an inquiry and deciding title, the lower courts acted with material illegality. The revision petitions were accepted, the judgments and decrees were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the trial court for a decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to abide by the statement of a particular person amounts to a reference to arbitration or a compromise?
  • Can a referee appointed under Section 20 of the Evidence Act examine witnesses and conduct a roving inquiry to decide a dispute?
  • What is the distinction between the functions of a referee and an arbitrator under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdul Majid and others1993 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh vs Messrs Aeroflot Air Lines, Lahore and another1993 CLC 555 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh vs (M/s.) Aeroflot Air Lines WAPDA House,K.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 292 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faryad vs Muhammad Asif1993 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicesummonsprocess-serverlimitation perioddate of knowledgewrit jurisdictionadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges concurrent orders of the lower courts setting aside an ex parte decree passed against respondent No. 1 in a suit for possession. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 1 was duly served with summons, justifying substituted service and ex parte proceedings, and whether his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was within time. The Lahore High Court held that the process-server's failure to independently verify the defendant's identity or affix summons to the outer door invalidated the substituted service, meaning the limitation period started from the date of knowledge rather than the decree date. Upholding the lower courts' findings, the High Court emphasized that law favors adjudication on merits and declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a process-server to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door vitiates substituted service?
  • Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree run from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge when proper service is not established?
  • Can a high court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of service of summons?
  • Is a want of due and proper service a sufficient ground by itself for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and another vs Inayat Ali1993 CLC 576 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29
  civil revisiondamages for civil suitcondonation of delaylimitationvoid decreemalicious prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court awarding damages to the respondent for the filing of a previous frivolous civil suit by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a time-barred appeal before the District Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, which the lower appellate court dismissed on the grounds of insufficient cause and unexplained delay. In the revision petition, the petitioners contended that the trial court's decree was void and without jurisdiction as a civil suit for damages for filing a civil action is not maintainable, and thus limitation does not bar its challenge. The Lahore High Court held that even a void order must be challenged within the period of limitation, and the petitioners failed to cross the bar of limitation. The Court further clarified that a suit for damages arising out of the filing of a civil suit is maintainable under certain conditions, specifically requiring allegations of false and malicious prosecution and special damages. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Must a void order or decree be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages on account of the filing of a previous civil suit?
  • What are the essential conditions for maintaining a suit for damages arising out of the institution of a civil suit?
  • Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client about the passing of a judgment constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Raja and others1993 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Rafiq1993 CLC 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1993 MLD 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2460 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Habibullah and 2 others1993 MLD 554 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 753 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Raza1993 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22
  default in rent depositchallan form errorcontumacystriking off defenceurban rent restrictionlandlord and tenanteviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance challenges the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge directing the appellant-tenant's eviction for allegedly defaulting on an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The appellant had regularly deposited the rent in the government treasury as ordered, but mistakenly filled in his own name in both column 1 and column 2 (designation of person on whose behalf money is paid) of the challan forms instead of the landlord's name. The core legal question was whether an incorrect entry in column 2 of a rent deposit challan form constitutes a contumacious default warranting the striking off of the defense and summary eviction. The Lahore High Court held that default under section 13(6) requires an element of negligence, fault, or contumacious intentional disobedience rather than mere clerical or technical non-compliance. The Court ruled that since the tenant admitted the landlord's title and had no motive to conceal it, the error was attributable to the scribe and was a mere technical irregularity rather than a deliberate default, especially as deposits are subject to the Rent Controller's final orders. The appeal was accepted and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an incorrect entry in column 2 of a rent deposit challan form automatically constitutes a contumacious default under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does a tenant's failure to mention the landlord's name in the challan form warrant the striking off of the defense without a finding of deliberate disobedience?
  • Whether the term 'default' in section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance imports an element of negligence or avoidable fault?
  • Can a clerical or technical error committed by a scribe in filling out a rent deposit challan form be excused as a mere irregularity rather than a penal non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and 2 others1993 CLC 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 900 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and others1993 CLC 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07
  constitutional petitionstatus quo orderillegal dispossessioncontempt of courtalternative remedycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner alleging illegal dispossession from a plot in Katchi Abadi by the Municipal Corporation during the subsistence of status quo orders issued by civil courts in pending civil suits. The core legal question was whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 could be invoked for restoration of possession when alternate civil remedies and contempt proceedings for violation of status quo orders were already pending before the trial court. The Court held that since the petitioner had already availed an adequate and efficacious remedy by filing civil suits and contempt applications before the civil court, the constitutional petition was not maintainable for the same dispute. The key principle laid down is that where a party has already sought relief through civil suits and proceedings for the violation of status quo orders, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be invoked to agitate the identical grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable when alternate civil suits and contempt proceedings regarding the same dispute are already pending?
  • Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction for illegal dispossession in violation of a status quo order when the trial court is competent to grant relief?
  • Is a civil suit considered an adequate and efficacious remedy against dispossession during the subsistence of a status quo order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Masood Akhtar and others1993 MLD 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Bashiran Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ans and 4 others vs Akbar Ali and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ans And 4 Other vs Akbar Ali And 5 OtherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs Allah Bakhsh and others1993 MLD 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir represented by his Legal Heir vs Mst. Gaman Bibi and 81993 CLC 734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Ghulam Muhammad1993 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08
  leave to defendpromissory noteexecution of documentconsiderationsummary suitsettlement of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellant's application for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit based on a pronote was dismissed and the suit decreed. The core legal question is whether the mere admission of signatures on a promissory note constitutes an admission of its execution and passing of consideration so as to justify refusing leave to defend under summary procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the expression 'execution' requires proof that the executant signed after understanding the contents, and where a specific plea of lack of consideration and ongoing business dealings (poultry feed accounts) is raised, an admission of mere signatures does not warrant an outright decree without inquiry. Furthermore, an admission must be considered as a whole. The court laid down the principle that mere presence of signatures does not equal execution when consideration is disputed, and cases requiring settlement of accounts necessitate granting leave to defend to allow evidence to be recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere admission of signatures on a promissory note amount to an admission of its execution?
  • Whether an admission made by a party can be used piecemeal to pass a judgment and decree?
  • Is a defendant entitled to leave to appear and defend a summary suit when a bona fide plea regarding lack of consideration and ongoing business dealings is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and others vs Malik Makhdoom Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 3 others vs Gulab and another1993 CLC 98 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06
  pre-emptionTalb-i-IshhadTalb-i-Muwathibatcivil revisionstatutory interpretationmandatory requirementsattestation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiffs' failure to properly perform Talbs and establish Zaroorat. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement under Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance/Act, mandating that a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad be "attested by two truthful witnesses," could be satisfied through oral attestation or if it required written attestation on the document. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the requirement for a notice attested by two truthful witnesses is mandatory and necessitates written attestation by the witnesses on the document itself. The Court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is a "feeble right," and statutory formalities for its exercise must be strictly observed. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established legal principle that where a statute prescribes a specific method for performing an act, that method must be followed exclusively, and failure to comply with such mandatory requirements is fatal to the enforcement of a pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of attestation by two truthful witnesses for a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption laws permit oral attestation?
  • Is the requirement of sending a registered notice attested by two witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad mandatory for the enforcement of a pre-emption claim?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to strictly observe the formalities required for the exercise of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin & Etc. vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Shariat Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 497 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Superintendent Jail and others1993 P Cr. L J 1145 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs District Council, Gujrat and another1993 MLD 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07
  auction bidconcluded contractwithdrawal of biddelegation of powersearnest moneyconstitutional petitionlocal council
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the retention of the petitioner's earnest money by the District Council, Gujrat, following an auction for collecting fees on the transfer of immovable properties. The core legal questions revolved around whether a concluded contract came into being when the bidder retracted his offer before acceptance, and whether the power to accept an auction bid could be delegated by a local council to its chairman under the relevant local government laws. The Lahore High Court held that a bid at an auction is merely an offer that does not mature into a binding contract until its acceptance is communicated by a competent authority, and that the bidder is entitled to withdraw the bid prior to such communication. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, the power to accept or reject an auction bid vests exclusively in the Zila Council itself and cannot be delegated to the Chairman. Consequently, since the bid was never accepted by the competent authority and was validly retracted by the petitioner before any purported approval, no concluded contract was formed, rendering the retention of the earnest money unlawful. The petition was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bid made at an auction constitutes a completed contract before its formal acceptance and communication by a competent authority?
  • Can a bidder legally retract or withdraw an auction bid prior to the communication of its acceptance?
  • Does the power to accept or reject an auction bid under the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990 vest in the Zila Council or can it be lawfully delegated to the Chairman?
  • Are local authorities justified in retaining earnest money when no concluded contract has materialized between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Abdul Hamid and others1993 CLC 510 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs A.C./Registration Officer and others1993 CLC 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Butt vs Azhar Ahmad and others1993 CLC 613 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Municipal Corporation, FaisalabadK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Customs Cases 31 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs A.S.P.1993 P Cr. L J 2246 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Boora vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs Lahore Development Authority1993 MLD 790 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Baba vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1993 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and others vs The State1993 MLD 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Nazar Muhammad and others1993 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Khaliq Saddiqi and others vs Settlement1993 CLC 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 607 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Syed Muhammad Mehdi Zaidi1993 CLC 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ahmad vs Subregistrar, District Courts, Faisalabad and 41993 CLC 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18
  registration of gift deedtransfer of immovable property taxPunjab Local Government Ordinancetaxing provision strict constructionregistering officer powerswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of twenty-one writ petitions raising a common question of law as to whether a registering officer under the Registration Act, 1908, can refuse to register a gift deed due to non-payment of the property tax levied under section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 4 which refers to the registration of a sale-deed. The core legal question was whether Rule 4 applies to transfers by way of gift or is restricted to sales. The court held that since taxing provisions must be strictly construed and Rule 4 specifically mentions the registration of a sale-deed, it does not apply to gift deeds. Consequently, the court ruled that a registering officer cannot decline to register a gift deed for non-payment of this specific transfer tax, declaring such refusal to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registering officer acting under the Registration Act, 1908, can decline to register a gift deed without payment of the property tax levied under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does Rule 4 of the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 apply to transfers of immovable property by way of gift or only to sales?
  • How should a taxing provision be construed when it is open to two reasonably possible interpretations?
  Read full judgment →
• Mt Jhammad Nasir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 212 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst.Khurshid Begum, vs Haji Pir Abbas Khan1993 CLC 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Bibi vs Naseer Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1993 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Sardar and another1993 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahran vs Umar Draz and others1993 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22
  custody of minorwelfare of minorguardianshipstepmothermaintenance of minorconstitutional petitionhizanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, wherein the respondent father sought custody of his minor son, aged ten. The lower courts granted custody to the father, relying primarily on the presumption under Muslim Personal Law that a father is entitled to custody of a male child over seven years of age. The petitioner mother challenged these orders. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the lower courts' orders to be without lawful authority. The Court held that the paramount and overriding consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, which outweighs any statutory or personal law presumptions. The Court observed that the father had failed to maintain the child, defied a maintenance order, showed indifference, and remarried. Forcing the minor to live with a stepmother against his expressed preference was deemed contrary to his welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the father's right to custody under Muslim Personal Law overrides the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor?
  • Does a father's failure to provide maintenance to his minor child, despite a court order, constitute a relevant factor in determining custody?
  • What is the legal significance of a minor's expressed preference regarding custody once they have attained the age of discretion?
  • Does the remarriage of a father and the presence of a stepmother affect the determination of the welfare of the minor in custody proceedings?
  Read full judgment →