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.

• Mian Muhammad Zafarullah vs Mirza Israrul Qadir and others1993 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad vs Allah Ditta1993 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Saeed and anothers vs Muhammad Ahsan Saleem and another1993 P Cr. L J 298 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Altaf vs The Secretary Health, Govt. of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 32 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Bakhsh Ellahi and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 856 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcivil disputecriminal breach of trusttheftmutually destructive offencesinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate. The petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 380 and 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged theft and misappropriation of machinery from a textile mill. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings were maintainable given the underlying civil dispute regarding the ownership and possession of the factory machinery, which was currently subject to adjudication in civil courts. The Court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of the Court. Furthermore, the Court observed that the charges under Sections 380 and 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, were mutually destructive, as a claim of theft contradicts a claim of criminal breach of trust (entrustment). Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle purely civil disputes or where the allegations are inherently contradictory.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature?
  • Are the offences of theft under Section 380 and criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 mutually destructive?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter render criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Ghafoor vs Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant1993 MLD 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs TUFAlL Muhammad & Brothers vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi,1993 PTD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Super Automobile Tractor Dealers vs Allah Ditta and another1993 CLC 814 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited vs Collector Appeals, Cenrtal1993 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10
  excise dutyright of appealpre-deposit of dutyundue hardshipdiscretionary powerquasi-judicial orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) directing the petitioner to deposit a disputed amount of excise duty as a condition for hearing its appeal, failing which the appeal would be dismissed in limine. The core legal question is whether an appellate authority can mechanically or without a hearing impose a condition of pre-deposit of duty, and how the discretion to dispense with such deposit under the relevant statute must be exercised. The Lahore High Court held that the discretionary power to dispense with the deposit of duty in cases of undue hardship is quasi-judicial and must be exercised judiciously, fairly, and reasonably rather than arbitrarily or through cyclostyled orders. The Court laid down that an opinion on hardship requires a tentative consideration of the merits and facts of the case, which inherently necessitates granting the appellant an opportunity of being heard before any such pre-deposit condition is imposed. The impugned order was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority can condition the hearing of an appeal on the pre-deposit of disputed excise duty without a speaking order?
  • Does the power to dispense with the deposit of duty in cases of undue hardship require affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant?
  • How must an appellate authority exercise its discretion regarding the waiver of pre-deposit of duties under fiscal statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Chaudhry1993 CLC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14
  civil revisionrestoration of suitprocedural defaultdismissal for non-prosecutiondiscretionary powerbona fide mistaketransfer of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the dismissal of a recovery suit by the trial court due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit proclamation charges for service of summons. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously in dismissing the suit under Order 9, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequently refusing to restore it under Order 9, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite the plaintiff's plea of a bona fide mistake. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was overly technical and punitive. The Court emphasized that procedural provisions like Order 9, Rule 2 are not imperative in nature and should not be applied to inflict extreme penalties for minor, non-contumacious lapses, especially when the party has otherwise pursued the litigation diligently. The Court established that where a party provides a plausible explanation for a procedural default, such as a bona fide mistake by counsel's clerk, and the default is not persistent or contumacious, the court should favor the restoration of the suit to ensure the matter is decided on its merits rather than on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the dismissal of a suit under Order 9, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Can a court refuse to restore a suit under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the failure to comply with a procedural order was due to a bona fide mistake?
  • Does a court have the authority to transfer a civil suit outside the territorial limits of a district for the interests of justice and administrative convenience?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Limited and anothers vs Mst. Hameeda Begum and 61993 CLC 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Friends Corporation Pesticides Dealers and anothers vs Messrs1993 CLC 583 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Epsilon Engineering International Consulting Engineers vs MRs, Qamar Jahan1993 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs CH. Muhammad Din vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone1993 PTD 623 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aswan Tentage and Canvas Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Messrs Ma.1993 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10
  Arbitration agreementSection 20 applicationFraud and misrepresentationFraming of issuesArbitration Act 1940Reference to arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenged a trial court order directing the filing of an arbitration agreement. The appellant contended that the agreement was void due to fraud and misrepresentation, arguing the trial court should have framed issues and allowed evidence before referring the matter to arbitration. The core legal questions were whether the court must frame issues regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement when fraud is alleged, and whether the court or the arbitrator determines the validity of an agreement procured by fraud. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the existence of the agreement was not denied and the allegations of fraud were vague and lacked essential particulars. Relying on the precedent of Lahore Stock Exchange Limited v. Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan) Ltd., the Court affirmed that the question of whether consent was procured through fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation is to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. Additionally, the Court reiterated that issues only arise when a material proposition of fact or law is asserted and denied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court or the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide if an arbitration agreement was procured through fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to frame issues regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement when the allegation of fraud is vague and lacks particulars?
  • Does an issue arise for the court to determine when a party fails to provide specific details of alleged fraud or misrepresentation in their pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din and 3 others vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 21993 CLC 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Khan vs Sher Baz Khan and another1993 CLC 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadpre-emption money depositZare-Soimcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved the mandatory requirements for making Talabs under the pre-emption law, specifically the proper pleading of Talb-e-Muwathibat and the attestation of the notice for Talb-i-Ishhad by two truthful witnesses, as well as the mandatory requirement of depositing one-third of the pre-emption money within thirty days under the relevant statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that failure to properly plead Talb-e-Muwathibat and non-compliance with the statutory witness attestation requirement for the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad renders the suit not maintainable. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to extend the period for depositing one-third of the pre-emption money beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit, and failure to make such deposit entails dismissal of the suit. The key principles laid down are that a pre-emptor cannot acquire an enforceable cause of action without making Talb-e-Muwathibat, that statutory notice requirements regarding witness attestation are mandatory, and that the thirty-day time limit for depositing one-third of the pre-emption money is strict and unextendable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to plead Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint bar a pre-emption suit?
  • Is the attestation of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad by two truthful witnesses under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990 mandatory?
  • Can a trial court extend the period for depositing one-third of the pre-emption money beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to deposit one-third of the pre-emption money within the stipulated thirty-day period?
  Read full judgment →
• Medipharm (Pvt). Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Masood And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 283 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iq Bal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 576 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02
  criminal revisionwithdrawal of complaintacquittalautrefois acquitbar to trialsummoning order
  Summary & questions settled

  The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby the petitioners were summoned in a complaint case. The core legal question raised was whether a fresh complaint for the same offences is maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier complaint resulted in the acquittal of the accused under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the withdrawal of the earlier complaint upon the satisfaction of the court operated as an acquittal of the accused under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court ruled that such an acquittal acts as a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offences pursuant to subsection (1) of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The impugned summoning order was accordingly set aside and the petition allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a criminal complaint result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • Whether an acquittal based on the withdrawal of a complaint bars a subsequent trial for the same offences?
  • Can a fresh complaint be filed on the same facts after the withdrawal of a previous complaint under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Market Committee, Mandi Farooqabad vs Abdul Rashid1993 CLC 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Maratab Ali vs The State1993 MLD 281 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-06Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-30Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali Butt vs Muhammad Bashir and another1993 CLC 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2229 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Khan vs Muhammad Feroz KhanK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Maqbool and others vs Riasat Ali1993 CLC 741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Manzoorulhaq and 3 others vs Mst. Kaneez Begum1993 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-30
  second appealinheritance mutationoral divorcelegitimacy of childburden of proofappellate court powersMuslim personal lawdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the appellants' declaratory suit. The appellants sought to cancel inheritance mutations, alleging that the first respondent was divorced by their predecessor-in-interest in 1936 and that the second respondent was not his daughter. The core legal questions involved whether the oral divorce was proven, whether the first appellate court failed to properly appraise the evidence, and the presumptions of Muslim law regarding marriage and legitimacy. The Lahore High Court held that although the first appellate court failed to independently assess the issues as required by law, the second appellate court possessed the power under section 100 to review the entire evidence on record. Upon a thorough review, the High Court found that the appellants miserably failed to prove the oral divorce through contradictory and partisan testimony, whereas Muslim law strongly leans in favor of marriage, legitimacy, and the presumption of paternity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the second appellate court can review the entire evidence on record when the first appellate court fails to independently appraise the issues?
  • Does Muslim law lean in favour of legitimacy and raise a presumption of paternity from marriage?
  • Whether oral evidence of a divorce allegedly pronounced years prior without corroborative documentation is sufficient to discharge the heavy burden of proof?
  • Whether a finding of fact regarding family relationship recorded by the trial court can be interfered with under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and 4 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2619 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 840 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Latif1993 CLC 785 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Administrator, Residual Properties and others1993 MLD 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1993 CLC 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and 2 others vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others1993 MLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-28
  res judicatafrivolous litigationvexatious litigationcivil revisionabuse of processprofessional misconductremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges an appellate order remanding a case to the trial court for framing preliminary issues regarding maintainability and res judicata. The dispute arose from a long-standing property conflict where the respondents, successors to a pre-emptor who failed to deposit pre-emption money, repeatedly filed multiple suits against the petitioner regarding the same subject matter. The trial court had dismissed these suits, but the appellate court remanded the matter. The High Court observed that the respondents were engaging in vexatious and frivolous litigation, repeatedly ignoring the principle of res judicata. The Court held that the appellate order of remand was improper given the clear history of repeated litigation on the same subject matter. It set aside the remand order, accepted the civil revision with costs, and condemned the filing of such suits as an abuse of the process of law. The Court further directed the District Judge to compile a list of all such suits and the counsel involved, noting that facilitating such litigation constitutes professional misconduct that pollutes the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow repeated litigation on the same subject matter where the principle of res judicata clearly applies?
  • Does the filing of multiple suits regarding the same property by a party constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is it professional misconduct for lawyers to draft and file plaints for suits that are clearly barred by the principle of res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Khan vs (Mst) Shazia KausarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs Hafizan and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21
  civil revisionframing of issuespower of attorneysale mutationdeclaration suitremand of suitmaterial irregularityfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a declaratory suit filed by the respondents seeking cancellation of two sale mutations in favor of the petitioner, asserting that the mutations were fraudulent, inoperative, and obtained via an unauthorized general power of attorney. The petitioner asserted that the power of attorney was validly executed with consent and that one predecessor had personally sanctioned his sale. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's regular first appeal. The Lahore High Court examined whether the lower courts failed to frame and determine a material issue regarding the validity and execution of the power of attorney and whether such failure warranted revisional interference. The High Court held that the core controversy turned on the validity of the registered power of attorney; without determining that issue, the findings on fraud and mutations were defective. The Court held that trial courts have a statutory duty to frame correct issues reflecting the real dispute, and failure to do so constitutes illegal exercise of jurisdiction and material irregularity. The revision was accepted, concurrent judgments were set aside, and the suit was remanded for retrial on all issues after framing the necessary issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to frame a specific issue on the core controversy in dispute constitute an illegal exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity warranting revisional interference?
  • Does the failure of parties to propose or insist upon framing a necessary issue absolve the trial court of its statutory duty to frame issues reflecting the real matter in controversy?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding fraudulent sale mutations be sustained when the validity of the underlying power of attorney was neither put into issue nor tried by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Committee, the Punjab, Club, Lahore vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 188 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mana and 4 others vs Hussain Bakhsh and 5 others1993 CLC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitconsent ordersufficient groundsformal defectsappellate jurisdictionprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for perpetual injunction where the plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one, citing formal defects. The trial court initially allowed this, but the District Court set it aside, remanding the case. Following a dismissal on merits, the plaintiffs appealed. During the appeal, both parties' counsel consented to the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one, leading the First Appellate Court to grant the request. The defendants challenged this order in revision, arguing that the court failed to determine the specific formal defects required for such permission. The High Court held that the impugned order was a consent order, as both parties' counsel had agreed to the withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be granted not only for formal defects but also for other 'sufficient grounds.' Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that parties cannot resile from a consent-based commitment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one based on 'sufficient grounds' other than formal defects?
  • Is a party permitted to resile from a consent order passed by the court based on the statements of their counsel?
  • Does the court have jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one if the parties have consented to such an order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malook Hussain alias Maluka and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz and 21993 P Cr. L J 1955 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mall Developers (Pvt.) Limited through Director vs Joint Official1993 PLD Lahore 688 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27
  auction salesale certificatecourt auctionnomineetransfer of propertyliquidationexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by a Director of an auction-purchaser company, Mall Developers (Pvt.) Ltd., seeking the cancellation of a previously issued court sale certificate and the issuance of a new certificate in the name of a nominee company, Mall Tanneries and Leather Works (Pvt.) Ltd. The core legal question was whether a court, under the provisions governing auction sales, possesses the authority to issue a sale certificate in the name of a nominee rather than the actual auction-purchaser, or to cancel a validly issued certificate to facilitate such a substitution. The Court held that a sale certificate must be issued solely to the person declared the purchaser at the time of the sale, as mandated by procedural law. The Court emphasized that it lacks the power to substitute names on a sale certificate or cancel a validly issued one for this purpose. The key principle laid down is that a sale certificate is evidence of title issued to the actual auction-purchaser, and any subsequent transfer of interest to a third party must be effected through a formal, registered sale deed, not by altering the court's sale certificate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court issue a sale certificate in the name of a nominee of the auction-purchaser?
  • Does a court have the authority to cancel a validly issued sale certificate to substitute the name of the purchaser with a third party?
  • Is a sale certificate considered a title deed or merely evidence of title?
  • What is the correct legal procedure for an auction-purchaser to transfer the purchased assets to a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Saifullah vs Ch. Rehmat Ali1993 MLD 542 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Noor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailplea of alibimala fide involvementulterior motivesmurderQisas and Diyat Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses a pre-arrest bail petition arising from F.I.R. No. 63 of 1993 registered under Section 324/34 and later converted to Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance at Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore, involving the murder of Afreedi Khan. The core legal questions involved the consideration of a plea of alibi at the bail stage and the establishment of mala fides or ulterior motives by the complainant or police as a jurisdictional prerequisite for granting anticipatory bail. The court held that pre-arrest bail is ordinarily not granted to an accused named in the FIR with a direct role, but must be granted or confirmed if the intended arrest is tainted with mala fides due to long-standing hostility and if supported by credible alibi evidence. Accordingly, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of petitioner No. 2 due to established enmity and strong alibi evidence supported by judicial officers, while dismissing the pre-arrest bail of petitioner No. 1 due to direct eyewitness attribution and lack of similar exculpatory circumstances. The key principle laid down is that a defence plea of alibi and evidence of deep-seated previous hostility and mala fide involvement can form the basis for granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi and its supporting material be taken into consideration at the bail stage?
  • Whether proof of mala fides or ulterior motives is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is a long-standing history of civil and writ litigation establishing deep-seated hostility with the complainant?
  • Does the involvement of an accused, prima facie supported by eyewitnesses and medical evidence, disentitle him to anticipatory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nayyar Hussain vs Muhammad Saeed and others1993 MLD 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 627 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Qasim vs Ali Bakhsh and another1993 PLD Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Abdullah vs Malik Manzoor Elahi and 2 others1993 MLD 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Anjum Farooq Piracha vs Waqar Zafar Chohan alias Wakki and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha and 7 others vs Manzoorulhaq Chohan1993 P Cr. L J 1056 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14
  quashment of F.I.R.counter-version F.I.R.double jeopardymala fideabuse of processlachesconstitutional jurisdictioncriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought the quashment of F.I.R. No. 495, registered against the petitioners, and the subsequent investigation proceedings. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R., which served as a counter-version to an earlier registered F.I.R. (No. 488) and had already been the subject of a dismissed private complaint, could be legally sustained. The Court held that the second F.I.R. was a mala fide "counterblast" to the initial murder case and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that a second F.I.R. cannot be registered if it is merely a counter-version or defence to an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident. Furthermore, because a competent court had already dismissed a private complaint based on the same facts, allowing the police to continue the investigation amounted to double jeopardy. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential investigation proceedings to be illegal, without lawful authority, and quashed them, asserting that the Court may interfere at the investigation stage if proceedings are mala fide and without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second F.I.R. be registered if it is merely a counter-version or defence to an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident?
  • Does the dismissal of a private complaint by a Magistrate bar subsequent police investigation into the same facts?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with police investigation proceedings in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle of laches bar a writ petition if the delay does not perpetuate injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmad Ghauns vs Chairman, Town/Municipal Committee,1993 MLD 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29
  land acquisitionpublic purposeemergency acquisitionmala fideconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionnotification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the Municipal Committee for public purposes, specifically the construction of a Jinnah Hall, water tank, and disposal works. The petitioner contested the validity of notifications issued under sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging lack of notice, availability of alternative land, mala fide intent, and the absence of genuine urgency to justify the invocation of emergency provisions. The Court held that the publication of a notification under section 4 in the Gazette constitutes sufficient notice to landowners. It further determined that the suitability of land for public schemes is a matter for the acquiring agency, not the court, and that allegations of mala fides require concrete proof, which was absent here. The Court affirmed that the determination of 'urgency' under section 17(4) is the sole prerogative of the government and not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquisition proceedings but, based on the respondent's concession that partial land was no longer required, ordered the release of 14 kanals of the 28-kanal tract.

  Questions settled

  • Is the publication of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the official Gazette sufficient notice to the landowner?
  • Is the determination of urgency under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
  • Does the failure to specifically declare the nature of urgency in a notification under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalidate the acquisition proceedings?
  • Can a court interfere with the acquiring agency's decision regarding the suitability of land chosen for a public purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmad Ghauns vs Chairman Town/Mun1cipal CommitteeK.I R. 1993 Revenue Cases 124 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Major Muhammad Hayat Tarrar vs District Collector, Gujranwala1993 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Major Hamid Ali Khan vs Mian Muhammad Anwar1993 MLD 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodurrehman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Regum and Other vs Rao Naeem HaiderK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Begum and 2 others vs Mst. Sakina Begum and 7 others1993 CLC 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Arif vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf1993 PLD Lahore 564 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mahfoozur Rehman alias Mahfooz Ahmed and 4 others vs The State1993 MLD 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ellahi vs The State1993 MLD 2244 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
• M.R. Najmi vs The Registrar, Federal Shariat Court, IslamabadK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir---Petitiorzr vs Federation of Pakistan1993 MLD 2099 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
• M. Shaukat Ali vs Election Tribunal and others1993 CLC 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• M. Sharif and others vs M. Anis Nagi1993 CLC 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
• M. Saeed vs Mst. Sardar Begum and others1993 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• M. Ramzan vs Abdul Karim Langha, Civil Judge1993 MLD 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• M. Nazir Inayat Ullah and Company and others vs Punjab Provincial1993 CLC 903 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• M. Aslam Butt vs S.P., Traffic1993 MLD 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• M. Amin Farooq vs Vicechancellor University of Engineering &1993 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30
  study leavewrit petitionuniversity employeediscretionary powersmaintainabilitynon-statutory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Professor against the refusal of study leave by the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. The petitioner, who had previously been granted study leave twice but could not complete his studies due to family illnesses, sought study leave for a third time, claiming an entitlement to unavailed portions. The core legal question was whether a university employee can claim study leave as of right and whether the refusal of such leave by university authorities constitutes an illegal act warranting constitutional interference. The Lahore High Court held that leave cannot be claimed as of right under the relevant University Ordinances, and the discretion exercised by the authorities to refuse the third study leave in the interest of the university was neither arbitrary nor mala fide. Furthermore, the court held that the non-statutory Ordinances framed by the Syndicate cannot be enforced through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether study leave can be claimed as of right by a university employee?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory Ordinances framed by a university syndicate?
  • Can university authorities refuse a third-time study leave based on the administrative discretion and interests of the university?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. (Retd.) Ijaz Ali Khan vs Mst. Shaheen and 2 others1993 CLC 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12
  custody of minorshizanatwelfare of the minorGuardians and Wards Actnatural guardianconstitutional petitionmaintenance of minorsstep-mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the petitioner-father’s application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his three minor children. The core legal question concerned whether the father, as the natural guardian, possessed an absolute right to custody, or if the welfare of the minors, considering the father's remarriage and failure to pay maintenance, necessitated their continued residence with the mother. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of the minors is the paramount and dominant consideration, which overrides the father's natural right of guardianship. The Court affirmed that a father may disentitle himself to custody through conduct, such as failing to maintain his children or creating an environment detrimental to their upbringing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the mother's right of hizanat is supported by Islamic tradition, and that courts exercising parental jurisdiction must prioritize the minors' best interests, including their educational and emotional stability, over rigid legal presumptions in custody disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Is the father's right to custody of his minor children absolute under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does a father's failure to pay maintenance to his minor children disentitle him from claiming their custody?
  • Can a court, in determining custody, prioritize the welfare of the minor over the father's status as the natural guardian?
  • Does the presence of a step-mother in the father's household constitute a relevant factor in determining the welfare of the minors for custody purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• LlAQAT vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Rashid and 3 others vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 558 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29
  land acquisitionlachesretrospective effectpresumption of regularitywrit jurisdictiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three connected writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioners sought to invalidate acquisition proceedings initiated in 1982, arguing that the delay between the notification under Section 4 and subsequent notifications rendered the proceedings void under Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, and alleging mala fide conduct. The core legal questions were whether the 1983 amendment (Rule 7) had retrospective effect on proceedings initiated in 1982, and whether the petitions were barred by laches given the ten-year delay. The Court held that the petitions were liable to be dismissed in limine. The Court affirmed that Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act is not retrospective and does not apply to proceedings initiated prior to its enactment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitions were barred by the principle of laches due to the excessive delay in challenging the notifications, noting that public proceedings enjoy a presumption of regularity and that pending intra-court appeals against previous similar judgments do not negate the persuasive authority of existing High Court decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act have retrospective effect on acquisition proceedings initiated prior to its enactment?
  • Can acquisition proceedings be challenged after a significant delay of ten years on the ground of laches?
  • Does the pendency of an intra-court appeal against a previous judgment render that judgment non-binding or without effect in subsequent similar cases?
  • Is there a presumption of regularity regarding proceedings conducted by public authorities under the Land Acquisition Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and 6 others vs The Government of the Punjab and another1993 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali And 6 Other vs Tul Govt. of the Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 294 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• Liaqat vs The State1993 MLD 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Rashid vs CommissionerK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Pervaiz Khan vs Government of the Punjab Through HomeK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1731 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Liaqu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Latif Ahmed vs Mst. RashidanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Lalkhan vs Election Tribunal Senior Civil Judge Sargodha And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Additional Sessions Judge and others1993 P Cr. L J 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Additional District Judge, Jhelum and others1993 CLC 731 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23
  constitutional petitionwithdrawal of suitfraud and misrepresentationcompromisecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had originally filed a civil suit for a declaration regarding a sale-deed and mutation, but subsequently moved an application for unconditional withdrawal of the suit. Later, the petitioner sought restoration and then filed an application under Section 12(2) alleging that the withdrawal was procured through fraud and misrepresentation because the respondents failed to fulfill compromise conditions. The trial court and the revisional court both dismissed the application. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of the suit was vitiated by fraud or required recording of a compromise where the withdrawal was unilateral. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had unilaterally sought unconditional withdrawal without any compromise being placed before the court, and thus no fraud or misrepresentation was established. The court laid down the principle that where a plaintiff unilaterally withdraws a suit without incorporating or presenting a compromise, the trial court commits no illegality in dismissing the suit as withdrawn without recording compromise terms.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained on the ground of unfulfilled compromise when the suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff unilaterally?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to record the terms of a compromise when a plaintiff makes a purely unilateral application for the unconditional withdrawal of a suit?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction when no jurisdictional defect is pointed out in the concurrent orders of the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Yousaf Ali and others1993 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Lal Din Qureshi vs Pak. Scandinavian Friendship and others1993 CLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
• Lahore Municipal Corporation, Town Hall Lahore vs Mian AmiruddinK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 118 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• L.Da. vs Mrs. Mussarat Imtiaz1993 PLD Lahore 933 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Khurram Ali vs Pakistan Railways and others1993 CLC 2344 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh---Petitioncr vs Small Industries Corporation and others1993 MLD 2325 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Majeed vs The State1993 MLD 278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1993 P Cr. L J 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Abdul Rashid and another1993 MLD 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2370 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →
• Khan Mohammad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 446 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →