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.
- Mst. Zahida and another vs Capt, (Rtd.) Shahid Ali Khan1993 CLC 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge directing the restoration of the custody of an eleven-and-a-half-year-old minor son to his natural father, the respondent. The core legal questions involved the legality of closing the petitioner-mother's evidence, the requirement of framing an issue regarding territorial jurisdiction, and the welfare of the minor in light of the mother's remarriage to a stranger and the minor's registration under a false parentage in school records. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of a grown-up male minor lies in the custody of his real father under Islamic law (Hizanat), particularly when living with a step-father creates future complications and violates injunctions against attributing false parentage. The Court held that the trial court's discretion in closing evidence after repeated adjournments was justified, and technicalities regarding jurisdiction do not vitiate concurrent findings of special tribunals.
Questions settled- Whether the welfare of a grown-up male minor of eleven and a half years lies in the custody of his natural father rather than his mother who has remarried a stranger?
- Does the mother's act of registering the minor under a step-father's name in school records affect the custody determination?
- Whether the trial court is justified in closing the evidence of a party after granting multiple opportunities for adjournment in guardianship proceedings?
- Does the non-framing of an issue regarding territorial jurisdiction vitiate proceedings where the material facts are admitted in the pleadings?
- Mst. Yasmeen and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Umri vs Muhammad Boota and others1993 MLD 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision concerns a dispute over agricultural land inherited by a widow under customary law. The core legal question was whether the widow, Mst. Umri, held the land as a full owner or merely as a limited estate holder for maintenance, thereby affecting the validity of a gift mutation she executed in favor of the petitioners. The court held that the widow, belonging to an agriculturist Jat family, held the land as a limited estate holder under customary law, which terminated upon the enforcement of relevant legislation. Consequently, she lacked the authority to alienate the property via gift. The court further held that a suit for possession by an heir against a limited estate holder is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908, not Article 14, and that the plea of adverse possession is barred by Section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975. The judgment affirms that mutation entries do not create title and that an heir's right to possession accrues upon the termination of the limited estate.
Questions settled- Does a widow holding land for maintenance under customary law possess the authority to alienate that property through a gift?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for possession filed by an heir against a limited estate holder?
- Can a person claiming title through a mutation of gift plead adverse possession against the lawful heir of the last male holder?
- Do mutation entries in revenue records create title to property?
- Mst. Umatullah and anothers vs Maqbool Hussain and 4 others1993 MLD 247 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughran Bibi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sookhi and others vs The Punjab Province and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sobia Hanif vs The Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Lahore1993 CLC 2073 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions involving a common controversy regarding the demand for ad valorem stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, Lahore, based on a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners challenged the validity of the valuation table, contending inter alia that it was neither notified nor published in the official Gazette and lacked legal effect. The Lahore High Court examined the import of the word 'notified' under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, read with section 2(41) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, and held that the use of the word 'notified' requires the contents of the valuation table to be made known to the general public, necessitating publication in the official Gazette or through recognized public modes of notification. Since the respondents failed to produce any record showing that the valuation table was ever published or brought to the notice of the public, the court ruled that the unnotified valuation table is of no legal effect. The petitions were accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 requires publication to be legally effective?
- Does the use of the term 'notified' in section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 necessitate publication in the official Gazette?
- What is the legal effect of a valuation table that has not been brought to the notice of the public or published in the official Gazette?
- Mst. Siddiqan and another vs Muhammad Ibrahim and another1993 MLD 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arose from a dispute regarding a registered sale deed executed by an attorney on behalf of two illiterate, Parda-observing ladies. The appellants challenged the sale, alleging the underlying special power of attorney was fabricated and fraudulent. The core legal question was whether the respondents, as beneficiaries of the transaction, discharged the burden of proving that the ladies, being illiterate and Parda-observing, fully understood the nature and contents of the power of attorney before executing it. The Court held that the respondents failed to provide cogent evidence of such understanding, rendering the document invalid under Section 16 of the Contract Act 1872. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence presented by the respondents to be contradictory and mutually destructive. Consequently, the Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants, and affirmed the principle that beneficiaries of transactions involving Parda-observing women must affirmatively prove the executant's informed consent and comprehension of the document’s implications.
Questions settled- What is the burden of proof on a beneficiary when a document is executed by an illiterate or Parda-observing lady?
- Can a second appellate court interfere with a finding of fact by a first appellate court if the finding is based on misread or contradictory evidence?
- Does the mere execution of a power of attorney by an illiterate Parda-observing lady satisfy the requirements of the Contract Act 1872 without proof of understanding?
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Munawar Din and 2 others1993 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions arising from guardianship proceedings concerning the custody of three minor children. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court correctly dismissed an appeal as time-barred by failing to apply the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the calculation of the time requisite for obtaining certified copies. The High Court held that the appellate court failed to consider the statutory amendment requiring that the period for obtaining copies must be calculated based on the date of delivery, provided the applicant was duly intimated of the preparation date. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside as being without lawful authority. The Court established the principle that the time requisite for obtaining certified copies for limitation purposes must be calculated from the date of application until the date of delivery, and that related appeals arising from the same evidence and subject matter must be adjudicated together to ensure a consistent and judicious determination of the minors' welfare, which remains the paramount consideration in custody disputes.
Questions settled- How is the time requisite for obtaining certified copies calculated for the purpose of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the failure of a lower appellate court to consider statutory amendments regarding the calculation of limitation periods render its order without lawful authority?
- Should appeals arising from the same guardianship proceedings and based on identical evidence be decided together?
- Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining custody disputes?
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Nasim Bibi and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2508 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar . vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and 21993 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Aichtar vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and 21993 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shafqat Bibi vs S.H.O., Saddar Police Station, Sargodha and 31993 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shabana Chaudhary vs Station House Officer, Police Station1993 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the quashment of FIR No. 75/91, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging fraud and misappropriation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature and previous investigations by the Federal Investigation Agency had already resolved the matter. The Court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law, noting that the allegations were vague, lacked specific details, and that the petitioner had been implicated only in the latest complaint despite earlier inquiries finding the matter civil. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings if the prosecution is launched for improper motives, to harass the accused, or if the dispute is civil in nature, rendering the continuation of the trial an abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings even if the petitioner could have approached the trial court under Section 249-A?
- Are the powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the powers of the trial court under Section 249-A and Section 265-K?
- Does a dispute that has been previously investigated and settled as a civil matter justify the quashment of a subsequent criminal FIR based on the same allegations?
- Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs TM Din1993 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had declared a gift deed executed by the respondent in favour of his daughter, the petitioner, to be fake, fictitious, and invalid. The core legal questions were whether the execution of the gift deed was proven and whether the essential requirement of delivery of possession under Islamic law had been satisfied. The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of the gift deed, which contained suspicious misstatements regarding the donor's family. Furthermore, the Court held that the gift was invalid due to the non-delivery of possession. It affirmed the principle that for a gift of immovable property, the donor must physically part with possession or, if the land is in the possession of tenants, direct the tenants to attorn to the donee. As neither occurred, the gift was incomplete and legally ineffective. The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a gift of immovable property complete without the physical delivery of possession or the attornment of tenants to the donee?
- Does the mere recital of delivery of possession in a gift deed constitute sufficient proof of actual delivery?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others vs Adc (C) and others1993 CLC 1112 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardar Begum and others vs Bashir Ahmad and others1993 MLD 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree which had set aside the trial court's judgment decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration and setting aside an earlier ex parte decree. The original dispute arose when respondent No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree declaring himself the owner of the disputed land through an alleged gift and adverse possession, subsequently causing mutations to be sanctioned. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original owner, filed a suit alleging that the ex parte decree was obtained through fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation without valid service of summons. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded fraud under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether the previous ex parte decree was vitiated by fraud, and whether the alleged gift was established. The court held that the pleadings adequately detailed the fraud, that the ex parte decree was indeed procured fraudulently through fabricated service of summons and collusion, and that the oral evidence regarding the gift was unreliable. The revision petition was accepted, restoring the trial court's decision in modified form.
Questions settled- Whether a separate suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is maintainable alongside remedies under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes sufficient pleading of particulars of fraud under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether non-service of summons coupled with collusive acts in obtaining an ex parte decree amounts to fraud sufficient to vitiate the decree?
- Can a party rely solely on uncorroborated and discrepant oral evidence to establish a gift of land against entries in the revenue record?
- Mst. Saleeman vs Muhammad Aslam and others1993 CLC 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sajidah Parveen vs Ubaid Ullah Khan and another1993 PLD Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Begum vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1993 MLD 2096 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rukhsana and others vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1993 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arose from a suit for partition and possession of a house, where a preliminary decree was passed and the property was subsequently auctioned. The respondents filed an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the auction proceedings on grounds of irregularity and fraud. The trial court dismissed the objection petition solely because the respondents failed to deposit 20% of the auction price. On appeal, the lower appellate court set aside this order and remanded the case, prompting the current revision. The core legal question was whether an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, can be dismissed for non-deposit of the 20% auction money without a prior court direction to do so. The High Court held that the proviso to Rule 90 requires the court to first issue a specific direction regarding the deposit amount. Absent such a direction, the court cannot dismiss the petition for non-compliance. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the necessity of a judicial order before the deposit requirement is enforced.
Questions settled- Can an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed for non-deposit of the 20% auction money without a prior court order directing such deposit?
- Is it mandatory for an executing court to specify the amount of deposit required under the second proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before rejecting an objection petition?
- Does the failure to deposit 20% of the auction price automatically invalidate an objection petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab and 12 others1993 PLD Lahore 21 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Abdul Ghaffar1993 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum vs Town Committee Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum1993 C L C687 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Bibi alias Rasheda vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rafiqan and 3 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Pakarab1993 CLC 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rafia Begum vs Haji Abdul Aziz1993 MLD 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen Bibi vs Akbar Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 433 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Fatima and anothers vs Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nathi vs Mst. Hamidan and others1993 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Iqbal vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another1993 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside the appointment of the female petitioner as a Lambardar solely on the basis of rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, restricting the ordinary appointment of females. The core legal question is whether rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which places restrictions on the appointment of females as Lambardars, is ultra vires Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, for discriminating on the basis of sex alone. The Lahore High Court held that rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, directly offends the constitutional command of Article 25(2) by placing females at a disadvantage based strictly on sex, and is therefore void and of no legal effect. The Court established that constitutional guarantees against sex-based discrimination prohibit disqualifying or restricting women from holding public offices such as a Lambardar unless the provision operates exclusively as a protective measure.
Questions settled- Whether rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, is violative of Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a female be appointed as a Lambardar under the rules of primogeniture?
- Does Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, apply to matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar?
- Does a rule preventing the appointment of a female Lambardar merely on the ground of sex amount to unconstitutional discrimination?
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Khuda Bakhsh and 5 others1993 CLC 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musharraf Sultana vs Fazal Hussain1993 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by the petitioner (the vendor's wife) in 1960. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the sale of evacuee land was not pre-emptible. In the High Court, the respondent raised three preliminary objections: first, that the revision was improperly presented because certified copies of the lower court's judgment and decree were not annexed; second, that the petitioner's withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of the pre-emption money during the pendency of the proceedings entailed dismissal of the suit; and third, that the issue of compensation for improvements made by the vendee remained undetermined. The High Court held that the omission to file certified copies was a directory procedural irregularity, not a mandatory bar, especially after the revision had been admitted and pending for decades. It further held that since the suit stood dismissed at the appellate level when the money was withdrawn, the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit did not prejudice the petitioner's claim. Finally, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court remitted the issue of improvements to the lower appellate court for a finding on the existing record.
Questions settled- Is the requirement to annex certified copies of the judgment and decree with a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or directory?
- Can a civil revision petition be dismissed for improper presentation on the ground of missing documents after it has been admitted and listed for final hearing?
- Does the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor during the pendency of a revision petition, after the suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, prejudice the pre-emptor's claim?
- Can the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, remit a specific issue to the lower appellate court for a finding on the existing record without remanding the entire case?
- Mst. Mural) Khatoon vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 3 others1993 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Said Zaman and 11 others1993 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 2 others1993 CLC 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehraj Bibi and others vs S.H.O. and another1993 P Cr. L J 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Maria Khan vs Muhammad Zubair Khan1993 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the mother seeking recovery and custody of two minor children from the respondent father, alleging they were removed from the United States in violation of foreign court orders and child custody agreements. The core legal question was whether the father's custody of the minors was illegal and warranted interference under section 491, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding pending guardianship proceedings and an earlier ex parte custody order passed by a Pakistani Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was devoid of force and dismissed it, reasoning that the father, as the natural guardian, held custody backed by a subsisting domestic order of the Guardian Judge which predated the foreign proceedings, that the minors were well-cared for and happy in Pakistan, and that disturbing their custody would not serve their welfare or override the exclusive jurisdiction of the Guardian Court where related proceedings remained pending.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of minors while guardianship proceedings are pending before a Guardian Judge?
- Does the removal of minor children from a foreign country in alleged violation of foreign court orders render the father's custody illegal under Pakistani law when an earlier domestic guardian order exists?
- Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration when determining whether to grant a writ of habeas corpus for change of custody?
- Whether a foreign court's consent order regarding child custody automatically supersedes a prior domestic custody order passed by a competent court in Pakistan?
- Mst. Kishwar Zohra vs Guardian Judge, Gujrat and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Superintendent of Police, Gujrat and others1993 P Cr. L J 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Karam Nishan and others vs Sherbaz Khan and others1993 CLC 2312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The District Judge, Vehari and 3 others1993 M L D258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jamila Begum vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, West1993 MLD 429 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Farooq Inayat and others1993 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a suit filed by the appellant, Mst. Iqbal Begum, seeking a declaration regarding inheritance rights and a family settlement, as well as possession by way of pre-emption concerning a house sold by the respondents. Following the Supreme Court's declaration in Malik Said Kamal Shah's case that the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 was repugnant to Islam, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's entire plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the pre-emption claim was barred by law. The core legal question was whether a plaint containing multiple causes of action or multiple reliefs must be rejected in its entirety when only one part or relief is barred by law. The High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not warrant rejecting a plaint as a whole unless the entire suit or all causes of action/reliefs contained therein are barred or defective. The Court laid down the principle that procedural rules must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, and where a suit includes multiple causes of action or alternative reliefs, the plaint should only be rejected in respect of the specific part or relief that is barred, allowing the remaining valid claims to proceed.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when only one of multiple causes of action or reliefs is barred by law?
- Does the term 'a cause of action' in Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply distributively to suits containing multiple causes of action?
- Whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessitates the dismissal of the entire suit where valid causes of action subsist alongside a barred pre-emption claim?
- How should procedural rules regarding the rejection of plaints be construed in relation to the advancement of substantial justice?
- Mst. Inayat Begum vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iffat Chaudhry vs Ghulam Rasool and others1993 MLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Huma Hafeez vs Shaukat Javaid and another1993 CLC 855 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which dismissed the petitioner-wife's suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the respondent-husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether the wife was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula, despite failing to prove other specific allegations of cruelty or maintenance default, due to her fixed aversion towards her husband. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in refusing the decree. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 7), the Court held that where a wife has developed a fixed aversion to her husband and there is no possibility of a harmonious marital life, she is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The Court set aside the lower courts' findings, decreed the wife's suit for dissolution, and dismissed the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Questions settled- Is a wife entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula if she has developed a fixed aversion to her husband, even if other grounds for divorce are not proven?
- Does the right of a wife to seek dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula equate to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq?
- Can a High Court set aside concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dissolution of marriage if those courts failed to correctly apply the principle of Khula?
- Mst. Hamidan Begum vs Abdul Riaz and 2 others1993 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hamida Khatoon vs Mst. Nazir Begum and others1993 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hakim Mai vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajan Nawab Bibi vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 492 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an Additional District Judge's order that reversed a trial court's decision to allow additional evidence in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether an order permitting additional evidence qualifies as a "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the revisional court properly interfered with the trial court's discretion. The High Court held that an order allowing or disallowing additional evidence constitutes a "case decided" because it involves the application of a judicial mind to an interlocutory matter. Consequently, it is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. However, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion by admitting certified copies of public documents essential for a just and fair resolution of the controversy. The High Court determined that the revisional court erred in interfering with this discretion, as the trial court's order suffered from no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity. The key principle established is that while such orders are revisable, appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's sound discretion to admit essential evidence to prevent future remands.
Questions settled- Does an order allowing or disallowing an application for the production of additional evidence constitute a "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a revisional court set aside a trial court's order allowing additional evidence if the trial court's decision did not suffer from a jurisdictional defect or material irregularity?
- Is the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 invokable to challenge a revisional order passed by a Civil Court?
- Mst. Ghulam Siddiqa and others vs Mst. Noor Begum through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Samna and anothers vs Mohsin Ali Shah and 6 others1993 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf Punjab and another1993 CLC 692 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fazal Bibi vs Messrs Asian Body Building Works and 4 others1993 CLC 90 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima vs Ghulam and others1993 CLC 567 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Versus Ghulam Etc. vs Heard On 16Th December, 1992.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 305 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ehsan Ullah and 2 others vs Fozia and others1993 CLC 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bush Ra Oas1m vs Dr. Abdul Rasheed and others1993 CLC 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions arising from an order passed by the Controlling Authority regarding maintenance allowance. The core legal question involved the correct period of limitation applicable to claims for past maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Lahore High Court held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance, allowing a period of six years prior to the filing of the application, rather than the eleven years granted by the Arbitration Council or the three years fixed by the Controlling Authority. The Court modified the impugned orders accordingly, setting the past maintenance period to six years preceding the application date along with future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, and directed the payment of arrears within sixty days. The key principle laid down is that claims for past maintenance by a wife are governed by a six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Questions settled- What is the applicable period of limitation for a wife's claim for past maintenance?
- Whether Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance?
- Can past maintenance be granted for a period exceeding six years prior to the filing of an application?
- Mst. Nasim Begum vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bhagan vs Feroze and 4 others1993 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Begum Mai vs S.H.O., Police Station Tapishen Dunyanpur1993 MLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Batool Begum through Legal Heirs vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore1993 CLC 683 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, Batool Begum, challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed her petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. The appellant had contested the validity of a notification by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf taking over the control and management of the shrine of Baba Rehmat Shah and its adjoining land, claiming ownership over a portion of the acquired property. The High Court observed that the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed thirty-day period from the publication of the notification. The Court held that pursuing a remedy in an incorrect forum or under wrong legal advice does not condone delay. On the merits, the Court ruled that a waqf may be created by long user for religious or charitable purposes without formal dedication. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether pursuing a remedy in an incorrect forum or under wrong legal advice constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a waqf property be created through long-term religious or charitable user in the absence of an express deed of dedication?
- What is the limitation period for challenging a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979?
- Mst. Azizan and another vs Mehr Din1993 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the petitioners (a widow and daughter) in a suit concerning inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the ex parte decree was obtained without lawful service of summons, rendering it void ab initio, and whether the limitation period for setting it aside ran from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, making the ex parte proceedings and decree illegal and void. The Court laid down that law favors adjudication on merits rather than technical knock-outs, that substituted service cannot be ordered without exhausting ordinary service and examining the process-server, and that the onus lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove valid service and timely knowledge when dealing with illiterate female litigants.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree passed without complying with the mandatory provisions for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is void ab initio?
- Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree run from the date of the decree or from the date of knowledge when the defendant was not duly served?
- Can a trial court order substituted service through affixation without first examining the process-server or verifying the return through an affidavit?
- Where the defendants are illiterate female litigants, upon whom lies the heavy onus to prove that they had prior knowledge of the ex parte decree?
- Mst. Athar Jabeen and anothers vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle III, Lahore and another1993 PLD Lahore 842 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged concurrent judgments regarding the ownership of a residential house transferred by the Settlement Department. The plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Feroze Din, claimed exclusive ownership, having obtained a transfer order by fraudulently omitting their sister, the defendant, from the list of legal heirs. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to rectify a transfer order procured through fraud and the determination of the true owner of the property. The Court held that the property was owned by Feroze Din, as the alleged gift to his first wife was not substantiated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to review their records to undo acts of fraud. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, confirming the defendant's entitlement to her share of the inheritance. The revision was dismissed, as the authorities acted within their jurisdiction to correct the record and ensure justice.
Questions settled- Does a court or tribunal have the inherent jurisdiction to recall or correct an order obtained through fraud?
- Can a party who fraudulently excludes a legal heir from a transfer order benefit from such an act?
- Does the repeal of Evacuee Laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 divest authorities of the power to correct records tainted by fraud?
- Mst. Asia Begum vs Nehmat Ali and 6 others1993 MLD 338 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amina Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Qila Gujjar1993 P Cr. L J 650 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Wasai and 4 others vs WAPDA through its Chairman and 31993 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Mehboob Akhtar and 2 others1993 MLD 687 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aimna Bi vs Mst. Bivi and others1993 MLD 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for joint possession as a daughter of the deceased owner, Fazal Dad. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant successfully established her parentage through documentary evidence and whether her suit was barred by limitation or protected under the doctrine of bona fide purchasers. The Lahore High Court held that contemporaneous documentary evidence, including mutation records, sufficiently established the appellant's relationship as the daughter of the deceased, overriding negative oral evidence and misinterpretations by the lower courts. The Court further held that limitation does not bar suits among co-heirs, and that the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is unavailable to purchasers whose vendor lacked valid title to the extent of the co-heir's share. The regular second appeal was accordingly accepted and the suit decreed.
Questions settled- Whether mutation entries and contemporaneous documents are sufficient to establish parentage over negative oral evidence?
- Does the bar of limitation apply to a suit for joint possession filed by a co-heir?
- Is the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act available to a purchaser when the vendor lacks valid title to the property sold?
- Mrs. Shabana Chaudhry vs The S.H.O. and others1993 MLD 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rani vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Il!Ahore1993 PTD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a series of petitions relating to wealth tax assessments for the assessment years 1980-81 through 1988-89, addressing whether a minor daughter's share in a property gifted by her mother can be clubbed with the mother's assets. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 21 and Section 2(m), Explanation (i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, as well as the applicability of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 to quasi-judicial proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that since the legal guardian appointed for the minor was only for her person and not her property, Section 21 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 did not apply. Furthermore, by virtue of the deeming clause in Explanation (i) of Section 2(m) of the said Act, the minor's share in the property is deemed to belong to the assessee mother, rendering the property assessable in her hands. The petitions were dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings before income tax authorities and tribunals?
- Does the appointment of a guardian of the person of a minor exclude the clubbing of the minor's assets with the mother's assets under Section 21 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
- Is a minor child's property deemed to belong to the assessee parent under Explanation (i) of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
- Can a question of fact regarding the service of notice and dispatch of appeal memoranda be agitated in reference proceedings before the High Court?
- Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1993 CL. 650 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen, Film Artiste vs Inspecting Assistant1993 PTD 1113 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which sought to reopen the petitioner's income tax assessment for the year 1988-89. The core legal questions were whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax possessed jurisdiction to reopen an assessment order that had already been subject to an appellate order, and whether such reopening was permissible based on a mere change of opinion regarding income previously considered. The Court held that the original assessment order had merged into the appellate order, which alone remained in the field. Consequently, under the unamended Section 66-A, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked the authority to reopen an order that had been appealed. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the issue of the disputed loan amount had been examined during the original assessment and appellate proceedings, the revenue authorities could not reopen the assessment merely on the basis of a change of opinion. The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned notice as being without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reopen an assessment order under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, after that order has been subject to an appeal?
- Does the doctrine of merger apply to an income tax assessment order that has been modified by an appellate authority?
- Can tax authorities reopen an assessment merely on the basis of a change of opinion regarding an issue already considered during the original assessment?
- Is the amendment to Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, introduced by the Finance Act, 1991, retrospective in nature?
- Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range-III and another1993 PTD 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of IncomePTCL 1993 CL. 641 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MRs, Naheed Ghafoor vs Muhammad Rafique Chaudhary and 2 others1993 CLC 53 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mohyuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Zubair Zafar vs Government of the Punjab and AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousaf vs Abdul MajidK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousaf Butt vs Mohammad Ali And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 295 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Shafi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Saleemul Shafi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz vs National Fertilizer Corporation of PakistanK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Latif vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 388 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ikram & Another vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Idrees Shah And 4 Other vs District Judge Jhelum And 2K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 89 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss Sobia Hadi vs The Principal, K.E. Medical College_Chairman, Admission Board of the Medical College of Punjab, Lahore1993 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses three consolidated writ petitions filed by students seeking admission to the first-year M.B.,B.S. class in medical colleges against the refusal of the Admission Board based on Rule 12(f) of the prospectus, because their intermediate examination results were officially declared on October 31, 1992, shortly after the application deadline of October 25, 1992, despite having secured high merit marks. The core legal question was whether candidates could be denied admission due to the delayed declaration of their results when final selection was made subsequent to such declaration. The Court held that the petitioners were eligible and unjustly refused, establishing the ratio that a candidate's right for admission and merit must be determined on the date final selection is made, rather than the application deadline, and that the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia excuses the non-production of results beyond a student's control. Furthermore, procedural technicalities and prospectus rules amounting to delegated executive authority must not defeat substantive rights or equity.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate can be denied admission to an educational institution on the ground that their result was declared after the last date for submitting applications when final selection is made subsequent to the result declaration?
- Does the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia apply when the delayed issuance of a result card is beyond the control of the student?
- Can prospectus rules or administrative regulations be allowed to defeat substantive rights through rigid technicalities?
- At what point in time must a candidate's eligibility and merit for admission be formally determined?
- Miss Rubia Abrar vs Pakistan (For Purposes of Service of Notice through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi) and 3 others1993 MLD 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Miss Robina Afzal vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate &1993 CLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Miss Razia Qureshi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Miss Farhat Batool vs Principal, Quaideazam Medical College, Bahawalpur and 2 others1993 CLC 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mirza Shahid Hussain and 10 others vs Administrator (R.P.), Lahore1993 MLD 2444 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mirza Muhammad Ilyas vs Mst. Badar-UN-Nisa1993 MLD 330 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mirza and others vs Saee Muhammad and others1993 MLD 669 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
- Mirza Ali Asghar vs Qadeer Ahmad1993 CLC 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for damages filed by the respondent against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Union Council, following the dismissal of criminal complaints lodged against the respondent for non-payment of an Adda fee. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 14,000, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions as Chairman enjoyed statutory protection under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and whether the revision petition was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that statutory protection only applies to acts performed in good faith and with the sanction of law. Since the petitioner failed to establish the lawful levy of the fee or the establishment of a bus stand with the requisite authority and bye-laws, and because political malice and lack of bona fides were proven, the lower courts rightly found him liable for damages. Furthermore, the Court held that the revision petition was barred by limitation pursuant to the amended 90-day period under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Do acts performed by a public functionary without legal sanction and good faith enjoy statutory protection under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a chairman of a union council levy an Adda fee without the prior approval of a Regional Transport Authority and applicable bye-laws?
- Does the amended ninety-day limitation period for filing a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to petitions filed after the amendment regardless of when the original suit was instituted?
- Whether filing groundless criminal complaints out of political malice renders the complainant liable for damages for mental agony and financial loss?
- Mirza Abdul Latif vs Medical Superintendent And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Miran Bakhsh vs Bashir Mad1993 CLC 2053 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mijshtaq Hussain alias Billa vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and 21993 CLC 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →